Web 2.0 Peer Reviews is a new way of reviewing research papers online. A full description of the concept can be found in my blog article A Web 2.0 Peer-Reviewed Science Journal. A very brief description of the system is as follows:
This page that you are reading now is a review site, and I (Philip Dorrell) am the intended reviewer. If you, as an author of a scientific paper, are interested in having me review your paper, all you have to do is publish your paper as a web page, and then send an email containing the URL to papers at-symbol 1729.com which states that you are submitting the paper for review. (Note: where it says "at-symbol", insert "@".)
My commitment is that I will look at all serious submissions, and I will include all submissions in the list of reviews, unless there is some very good reason not to (for example the content is inappropriate). How much effort I put into reviewing each paper is very much a function of how many papers I receive, and, for each paper, how much review effort it seems to merit. It should be possible to determine how much effort I have put into a particular review from the review itself. In some cases a review may indicate that, due to certain problems found in certain parts of a paper, I determined that it was not worth doing a thorough review of the rest of the paper.
There is an expectation that if I seriously review a paper, and point out ways in which I believe the paper needs to be improved, that the author will respond in some way to my points. Of course I have no control over what the author does or does not do, but papers that respond in ways which improve the paper are more likely to rise in the ranking order.
All reviewed papers will be listed in the lists below, which have been divided into four major categories. Furthermore, within each category, papers are ranked in terms of quality (according to my own personal judgement).
Because this review site has been created to demonstrate the concepts of Web 2.0 Peer Review, and because I have not yet received any real submissions, each category below has an example review, which is clearly marked as such.
10 February, 2006
This seems like an interesting analysis, but it needs to expand much more on the details.
The author needs to give a definition of the term feature detection (or feature detector).
(Note that the date of the paper given in this review is older than the date in the current version of the paper, so this review may be out of date. For example, the author has now given a definition of "feature detection".)
15 September, 2005
Unfortunately I would have to know a lot more mathematics, physics and in particular string theory than I do now to know whether this paper even makes sense. The author has failed to give a specific reference for the "recent result of Hawking and Penrose".
14 August, 2005
The author seems to be unaware of the fact that our eyes cannot detect colour at low light intensities.
13 August, 2005
Perpetual motion machine!!! Also, the paper needs a diagram to properly explain the arrangements of all the wheels. And the author should include a detail description of the calculation "using classical mechanics and the bearing friction".