Page 24 - Black Range Naturalist Vol. 1 No. 1

An Experiment in Peer Review
The readers of this newsletter are familiar with the concept of peer review. This newsletter is not a peer- reviewed journal, at least not in the traditional sense of the concept. Before articles appear in peer- reviewed publications they are subjected to a review by other experts on the subject. It is considered the gold standard in publication, by many, especially the peer-reviewed publications. However, it is a sluggish process which often gets in the way of the dissemination of information and is often prone to supporting the commonly accepted “facts” at the expense of new ideas and “facts”.

We all benefit from the efforts and works of others. Established fact has great value (and understanding how established fact changes is perhaps of even greater value). Accepted fact is difficult to challenge, from the grand to the mundane. For example, you will find references to scientific synonyms throughout this work, and which name is correct and which is a synonym is a big deal, especially for the authors.
Here, we experiment with after-the-fact peer review. We actively encourage our readers to respond to the information contained in the newsletter. Our goal is to advance knowledge and the availability of information. Our approach leads to a different type of error. The error of just getting it wrong, something that peer review might have caught. We don’t think that is likely, certainly not the norm, and is a small price to pay for the active dissemination of information (even if it is sometimes untested). And we hope that our readers will actively engage in this process.
Page 23 of 23