Logo



ISSN 2364-3641



Publications:

overview


direct access:

1 (2015)

2 (2015)

3 (2015)

4 (2016)

5 (2016)

6 (2017)

7 (2017)

8 (2018)

9 (2018)

 

vpl-reports.de

Open Access

| home | evaluation | archive | vpl-goettingen.de | impressum |   

The evaluation system used here

Publications in this journal are not peer-reviewed, at least not with the usual peer-reviewing process in which 2-3 referees evaluate a manuscript before publication. But to give you an idea of what other readers think about the papers and let you yourself become a referee, I introduced a post-publication reviewing system in which all readers may comment on the papers.

That was the original idea. To prevent misuse of the comment function and to avoid anonymous bashing, I had announced to publish comments only after approvement and had asked everyone to leave his or her real name together with the comment. No comments have been made (which I understand; I myself would also hesitate to published an ad hoc comment without having carefully read the paper, and time is always short).

Therefore, and to allow for spontaneous evaluations, I introduced a rating system in which everyone can make a rating between 1 (low) and 5 (high). To avoid high-frequent repetitions, I had to block IP addresses for a certain time after each rating. During that time readers could change their ratings but could not accumulate hundreds of ratings on the same paper. For that, IP addresses were internally stored (but not resolved and localized). That seemed to work. But even this system is not fully protected against misuse. When a misuse was obvious, I have removed the according ratings, and in serious cases I have even blocked access to the rating system for certain IP addresses. If that will not be sufficient, I may have to switch to an indirect evaluation in which ratings must be approved before they are counted.

If you have made a rating or plan to do so, please note that ratings with individual papers should refer to the content and the presentation of the according paper, not to other aspects you may want to evaluate. If you dislike the format or the layout of this website (I know of people who do), please do not low-rate the papers without having even looked at them; but use instead the (new) rating playground below. (Also as a referee you should not criticize a manuscript for the style of the journal to which it was submitted.) Accordingly, if you want to express your sympathy with my way of founding an own (and cheap) journal, please express it below and not with the individual papers. Beyond any ratings I shall always be happy to get your comments by E-mail.

Advantages and disadvantages of rating systems

If you are a working scientist, you must have been thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of certain evaluation systems. In the usual reviewing process, the publication of a new manuscript is based on comments of a few referees from the peer. Among the clear benefits of this system is the discovery and removal of (some) errors and mistakes and often enough the improvement of the clarity of a presentation. But this system also has disadvantages. One is a tendency of the peer community to reproduce the common meaning and to restrict research to main stream ideas and models. (Did you ever wonder if Galileo Galilei might have got his findings through a standard peer reviewing process?) Another disadvantage is the limitation to very few people, all certainly experts but likely not all experts in exactly the topic of what the manuscript is about. The latter restriction might be overcome in a post-publication rating system in which (if taken seriously) all experts from the field may evaluate the paper and make their ratings.

A (merely organisational) restriction is that many science indexes, pubmed, WebofScience and others, list exclusively papers from peer-reviewed journals. Given that certain new ("predatory") journals tend to use peer reviewing in a rather careless way just to earn many publication fees, that restriction does not seem to be adequate anymore. Papers from these journals although perhaps not properly evaluated will be listed in the science indexes while other papers even when highly rated by the community will not. I think that decision may need a revision and the development of other, more appropriate quality indicators than the usual peer reviewing process.


Ratings of this journal (format, style, layout)
and playground for "test raters"

Here, you may try the rating function I have developed for this website. As with the other ratings (together with the papers), your IP address will blocked after each rating; you may then change your rating but cannot repeat it several times. If you have (verbal) comments about the website in general, please send me an Email.

journal

This rating is in case you want to evaluate the need and general usefulness of this journal

Ratings:    (?)
       
poor  -   -   -  excellent
5.0   (n=1)
5
4
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0

style

Please use this rating for the structure and general organization of this website.

Ratings:    (?)
       
poor  -   -   -  excellent
5.0   (n=1)
5
4
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0

layout

Please rate here what you think about the general layout and the colored backgrounds.

Ratings:    (?)
       
poor  -   -   -  excellent
5.0   (n=1)
5
4
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0

 

   © 

 

   ©