A few months ago, my friend Michelle Lin instituted a few new features on the Academic Life in EM Blog (ALIEM). She and her crew of awesome editors added pre-publication critique as well as post-publication, expert peer review. I have debated on numerous occasions in the FOAMosphere all the reasons I find pre-publication peer review to be an unnecessary vestige of a flawed publishing paradigm. Smarter folks than me have said the same thing. On often-visited sites like EMCrit, post-publication peer review happens automatically and with a width and breadth that traditional journals can't hope for (I love you commenters!).
But there are a few interviews I do for the podcast in which I am a well-informed user, but not an expert. For these ‘casts I am interviewing an expert, but I am giving you just that single practitioner's viewpoint. It would be nice to balance these podcasts with a separate expert's take. For these situations, I am taking a page from Michelle's book. Next Monday, I will have a podcast on PE teams with Oren Friedman. I reached out to Jeff Kline to provide expert commentary on this podcast and he was kind enough to oblige. I personally don't consider this to be peer review and I am staying away from the term entirely. Instead, look for the “expert commentary” symbol on select future podcasts.
Latest posts by Scott Weingart (see all)
- EMCrit 259 – Cardiogenic Shock — The Next Level & Mechanical Circulatory Support with Jenelle Badulak - November 13, 2019
- Letter to the Editor – High-Sensitivity Troponin is not a Myth, and “Myth-busting” is often another Myth to be Busted - November 10, 2019
- EMCrit 258 – Should Andexxa be added to a Hospital's Formulary? - October 26, 2019