"Peer Review" Makes Mockery of Science

[davesmith_au]

'08 Apr 13 ~ davesmith_au

There once was a time when to have a scientific paper published, it had to be - well, - scientific. Not so any more it appears. Peer Review has become more like Snob Review or Mate Review, and the so-called "prestigious" journals are making a mockery of themselves and of science....[more...]

[bdw000]

"The new study suggests that the universe that came before our own universe was its identical twin."

That reminds me of an old Steven Wright joke. He says that one evening when he came home, he realized that someone had stolen everything in his apartment, and replaced it with an exact duplicate.

As comedy, that idea is brilliant. As science, it deserves as much garbage thrown up on stage as is humanly possible.

I have read quite a few complaints about the peer review system over the last few years, and I'm sure many here are familiar with them.

I think the most significant one is CONFLICT OF INTEREST. If some scientist has spent his or her life championing a certain idea, and maybe even gained a certain amount of fame from doing so, and they have the power to SWEEP ANY EVIDENCE THAT UNDERMINES THEIR PET IDEA UNDER THE RUG, before it can "see the light of day" in some approved journal, what do you think is going to happen in at least some cases? They have the power to prevent their error being found out. Not only that, the whole SECRECY part of the process simply BEGS for dishonesty, making the above easier to occur.

I have read of several cases of scientists complaining that after they submit articles for publication that are denied publication because of bad reviews, a year later someone who is almost certainly one of the reviewers (can't be proven due to the secrecy, and yet many times everyone "knows" who they are) publishes that very idea.

The theory of peer review does have some merit of course. The problem, as always, is the implementation that ASSUMES honesty when the incentive is simply there to be dishonest.

[davesmith_au]

I think the most significant one is CONFLICT OF INTEREST. If some scientist has spent his or her life championing a certain idea, and maybe even gained a certain amount of fame from doing so, and they have the power to SWEEP ANY EVIDENCE THAT UNDERMINES THEIR PET IDEA UNDER THE RUG, before it can "see the light of day" in some approved journal, what do you think is going to happen in at least some cases? They have the power to prevent their error being found out. Not only that, the whole SECRECY part of the process simply BEGS for dishonesty, making the above easier to occur.

Oh yeah, bdw, ain't that the truth. You will most likely be interested to read Stephen J Crothers' latest escapades, Letters from a Black Hole. Steve is a very accomplished mathematician and theoretical physicist who has had mountains of trouble with journals because he has quite convincingly debunked black holes and the big bang. Once you've checked out that page, browse his whole site, it's a wealth of examples of peer-review gone mad.

Steve is a well-respected member of the Santilli-Galilei Association on Scientific Truth and has received a special mention for his "Big Bang Busted" Thunderblog.

All in all he's one chap whose work we here should follow closely.

Cheers, Dave.

[bdw000]

Thanks for those great links.

They are really good.

[Solar]

Thank you for the update on Crouthers Dave. It's great to know that his work is also being appreciated elsewhere.