Time to review peer-review itself

Only a tiny percentage of the world can’t do the math nor conceptualize what most Quantum Mechanics papers talk about.

That leaves how many? Ten thousand? One thousand? How about getting every possible eyeball that is interested in the subject a chance?

That is all the more reason that the wide-open Internet is better than trusting the old ways of “peer review”. Having three or four people to pass or veto new ideas because of the cost of paper and ink is a very obsolete notion now.

Joao Magueijo is no intellectual lightweight. In his book “Faster Than the Speed of Light”, he penned his complaints about the peer review process he had to go through, only because his theory was possible a “breakthrough” that challenged a basic dogma current cosmology and physics. He was put through double the usual trouble, and points to the Internet as facilitating good alternatives.

Climategate exposed the dark essence of peer review, with one of the conniving hoaxters colluding with a colleague about using it to censor out dissident papers. James Watts discusses peer review in the context of climate hysteria at his blog:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/climategate-begs-the-question-is-peer-review-in-need-of-change/

Nature Magazine hosted a web-based discussion on the subject of peer review, at a link that Watts provided as useful:

http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,


%d bloggers like this: