To the author I would say: show me some hard evidence or retract the statement. Unknown scientists are published all the time. How else would they ever become "known" in the first place?If a well-known scientist submits a paper, it will probably be accepted; if an unknown submits one, it will probably be rejected.
I would like to add that whatever journal you submit to has editors that are familiar with the subject-matter you are addressing. They choose the anonymous referees, who are (as far as I know) unpaid specialists who are qualified to pick apart your work. This process is designed to vet papers, cull out dogs, improve marginal papers and hone superlative papers. It may not always work out that way, but it appears to work pretty well. If all papers were published electronically (ArXiv or equivalent) with no peer review, it would be pretty tough to plow through them all and evaluate them fairly.will.c said:To add to that, I'm always hard pressed to see statements such as the one quoted as serious critique, rather than sour grapes.
Criticizing peer review is something that has to be done in a disinterested, objective tone or else it comes off as whining, and is hardly likely to effect any change in the process.
Pretty much what I was thinking.Does one stop reviewing papers? Then the journals are flooded with crackpottery.
In the medical imaging field most journals use a "double-blind" review process with the editor being the only one who knows the identity of both the reviewers and the authors. It is a little silly since, as you point out, it is a small enough community that it cannot truly be blinded. But the double blind approach certainly doesn't hurt the process in any way, and at least there is "plausible deniability" to keep anyone from getting too upset when they see each other at the next conference.Vanadium 50 said:Does one make the authors name unknown to the reviewer? People have proposed this, but I think you have the same issue as above, only in reverse. There just aren't that many people who could have written a particular paper. Experimentally, it's even easier to figure out - often apparatus is unique, like fingerprints.
aquitaine said:Recently I found a couple of articles that are critical of the peer review process. What are your thoughts about them?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3326091/Peer-review-the-myth-of-the-noble-scientist.html
Article2
"I realize now that a new theory is likely to meet resistance, but it should, if based on GOOD experiments, receive sceptical encouragement if science is to remain in balance. Non-confirmists are necessary for progress in science, just as mutations are necessary for progress in evolution. However, there must be constraints to select good mutations from bad mutations. Too many mutations block evolution, as error-prone straints of bacteria have proved. So non-conformist thinking in science must be encouraged to make progress, but restrained to prevent anarchy. In science, it is PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS and granting agencies that provide such balance."
"The trouble is that journals can easily become too conservative, because editors find it easier to reject the unusual than to take a chance on the unthinkable... The existence of multiple journals provides the final safeguard against too much conservatism and is the ultimate reason that science is more receptive to non-conformity than any other segment of our society."
The peer review system is a process used by scientific journals to evaluate and assess the quality and validity of research before it is published. It involves experts in the same field as the research being reviewed critically examining the study and providing feedback to the authors.
The peer review system is important because it helps to maintain the integrity and credibility of scientific research. It allows for the identification of errors, biases, or gaps in the research, ensuring that only high-quality and reliable information is published.
Some criticisms of the peer review system include the potential for bias and subjectivity, the possibility of gatekeeping and perpetuation of dominant ideas, and the lack of transparency in the review process. There are also concerns about the time and resources required for the peer review process.
There are several ways in which the peer review system can be improved, such as implementing a more transparent review process, reducing the time and cost involved, increasing diversity among reviewers, and incorporating post-publication peer review. Some also suggest incorporating different review methods, such as open review or double-blind review, to address potential biases.
No, the peer review system is not perfect. However, it is considered the best way to evaluate the quality and validity of research currently available. It is a constantly evolving process, and efforts are being made to improve and address the criticisms of the system. It is important to recognize that the peer review system is just one step in the scientific process and should not be the sole determinant of the value of research.