The International Institute of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS) is an 18 years old multi-disciplinary organization for inter-disciplinary communication and integration, in the context of different epistemological values. Consequently, a main purpose of the IIIS is to foster knowledge integration processes, interdisciplinary communication, and integration of academic Activities.
Because of its IIIS multi-disciplinary nature, its founders have been dealing with a plurality of views regarding peer reviewing standards, while finding that common problems in many disciplines were related to the ineffectiveness of peer reviewing methodologies used in different disciplines in the context of accepting or non accepting papers for conference presentations, journal’s publications, and grant applications.
The objective of achieving a minimum level of peer reviewing effectiveness might be more challenging in inter-disciplinary research, education, and real life problem solving. Consequently, and because multi- and inter-disciplinary nature, the IIIS has been, for a long time, trying to improve the effectiveness of peer review methodologies. Several potential solutions have been implemented and lesson has been learned from both, failures and successes.
This blog on “peer reviewing” is one of the means being currently used in the continuous effort the IIIS is making to identify potential solutions or, at least, remedies for ameliorating the weaknesses of the current peer reviewing methodologies.
Peer Review 
Two thoughts come to my mind. First, we, as a society, have to develop within ourselves that sentiment of Socrates that an unexamined life is not worth living; we have to care enough about knowing who we are and why were here – a central idea of our existence before these relatively secondary issues like peer review are raised. It is like crafting a life raft; your very survival depends on it. To make one of poor quality jeopardizes your own life. The same it is with knowledge quality, the foundation of peer review. On to of these we need to formulate what knowledge quality really means, and this is more of a process than a result. In coming days and weeks, I’ll be posting here more about such knowledge quality. In addition, as a program committee member of the IIIs Knowledge Generation and Communication Management, I will be discussing an idea for a workshop this July in Orlando where interested persons can gather to create an action plan to further quality peer review. Late yesterday I came back home from a rather exhausting trip and not feeling all that well, so it will be a few days before I’ll write in elaboration.