There have been several instances where commentators at this blog have criticised others for publishing their information on websites rather in peer reviewed journals. The inference being that if its not in a peer reviewed journal, the idea has little merit.
Interestingly, there's a new medical journal to be published by Elsevier called 'Medical Hypotheses' and it plans to take a deliberately different approach to peer review:
"Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In Medical Hypotheses, the authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer': choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted.
Papers in Medical Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations."
What a great idea! And doesn't the new journal neatly articulate the problems with peer review for those working outside of established paradigms.
The quote was sent to me with a link to a blog piece by Andrew Leigh in which he suggests the concept has application to economics.
So the odd genius is very very smart!
Hans Erren,
..and also the famous Watson Crick paper of 1953 was not peer reviwed either.
In medical peer review there is no anonymity and conflicts of interest are always noted otherwise you would have no credibility.
Or less I should say, the really significant papers are conducted by double or triple blind study. Otherwise you are just expressing an opinion.
few people know that the works of Einstein and Planck in the "Annalen der Physik" were not peer reviewed.
Some referees do make their identities known.
Some referees decline to review certain material for conflict of interest or lack of competence in the specific area.
Most referees do make signficant comments on areas of rejection.
And indeed the submitting authors can also cite reviewers who they think may have a conflict of interest or bias. Of course this also be an attempt to avoid scrutiny.
Malcolm - do you have an idea of the overall degree of corruption. And do you have a proposal as to what standards Science and Nature for example should employ. There is also the issue of data and computer program availability as well. Do we expect reviewers to actually repeat methods. In areas were supercomputer size calculations are used it would be nigh impossible.
(I apologise for taking the piss before - couldn't help myself.)
Hi Steve,
Yes I did realise that Lukes epistle was an attempt to be funny/clever, and to also make a point about what can be said about PR, as applied to my blog post.
As for anonymous PR'ers being more ethical than the openly declared I fail to see how that could be that case. I would of thought that an open system would make it very difficult for shenanigans of that type.
After all, the reviewers name should be identified with the paper, and made known. That stops plagiarism and theft and if the pp is a dud then he wears it (to a limited extent) as well.
Luke, I would be mightily pissed off if some anonymous person red inked a piece of my work and I had no opportunity to discuss or negotiate, with the reviewers and the publisher.
That would be a denial of natural justice.
But I would be even more pissed off if some anonymous reviewer made use of my work to advance his own,and to do this he also scuttled my paper. Dont tell me this doesnt happen because according to the evidence it does, and is more common than anyone will admit.
Why would anyone be a scientist when the system is so corruptible and unfair. Not me.
I have enough trouble with IP protection in commerce and industry.
Yes, I have had papers published but they were not subjected to the classical PR process.
I never expected that a simple observation would create so much angst and opposition when all the evidence is that an open system would be fairer and more efficient and less corruptible.
There are oodles of parallels in other domains where openess works, and given that the publisher has the final say just what is the issue here.
According to the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, an open system would:
1.Reduce the abuses of the system.
2.Render referees more accountable for their comments.
3.Increases the credit given to referees.
They are pretty powerful reasons for change.
Malcolm, I like that you brought up lawyers as setting an example for an alternative approach. No politics or corruption there.
As for your "the studies are out there just google it" you may not have heard of the recent analysis of alledged citations made by people on the internet with no link or specifics provided. It turns out that in 96% of all cases the reference is fabricated and the professed unwillingness to provide a link is in fact disguising an inability.
You can google for it.
Look out Malcolm, Jennifer has been known to gently chide those on her blog who seem incapable of a sense of humour.
You do realise Luke was being funny, and funny is always relevant. Gee down old son!
Back to the serious: one potential problem that I can see with having the peer-reviewers' identities always made public is the increased opportunity for the reviewer to be influenced, either for or against the findings of the paper. A fairly obvious problem don't you think?
For example, a hypothetical peer-reviewer who is very smart and knowledgable but timid and nerdy could be hassled or intimidated inappropriately by a third party who approached them with an abrasive and emotional arguing style - such as your own style in this thread - if their identity were public.
A poor and unscrupulous peer reviewer might be persuaded to accept money to find a particular result etc.
Having anonymous reviewers goes a long way to avoiding this, and having multiple reviewers (as is generally the case) makes the possibility of shenanigans even more tricky.
And how many journal papers have you written Malcolm? Are you speaking from experience perchance.
I suspect if you had 3 years invested in a piece of research you would be miffed by a red ink review or your blood is made of silicon.
Nice try Luke. To bad it is irrelevant. But then that doesnt surprise me one bit.
I am not making any other case than the need for secrecy. The references I have used are readily available to anyone. Just do a Google or Wiki.
Go on, you might surprise your self as to the extent of the problem and what can be done to improve it.
BTW if someone wrote that about a paper I was trying to have published, and he had put his name to it I would take on the chin,and do something about it. But in the context of blog it is just point scoring crap.
Judging by the intellectual content and logic of the repartee being peddled herein, there arnt too many scientists involved, or are there?