Peer Reviewed Journal via three different mandatory reviewing processes, since 2006, and, from September 2020, a fourth mandatory peer-editing has been added.
There are two approaches for evaluating scientific papers. The
classic way is to choose well established representatives of the
specific scientific community and have them evaluate their
colleague’s work. The other method of evaluation, the so called
peer-evaluation method, is where peers (famous or otherwise)
of the author evaluate the paper.
Peer-evaluation resembles the diffusion process in which a
new substance spreads out to the whole solution. Similarly the
new author and article are diffused among the scientific
community, smoothing the level for accepting scientific papers.
Using the classic-evaluation system of accepting new papers,
the average starting scientists writes their first number of
articles as collaborators with a renowned scientist, thus
gradually building up their image. Only afterwards do these
authors dare to independently publish.
What are the pros and cons of both these types of scientific
article evaluations?
