Peer-Review Under Review
in [Relativity]
|
From: paparios on 12 Apr 2010 08:42 On 11 abr, 13:44, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > On Apr 9, 11:12 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Einstein's famous 1905 papers were NOT peer reviewed by Planck or > Wien: they were not reviewed at all! The procedure in German physics > at that time was that an unknown author's FIRST paper only was > reviewed (to ensure his competence). After he had jumped that hurdle, > an honor system was used, trusting gentlemen to only submit > professional quality material. Quality was the professional measure - > not quantity of papers published. > It is the greed, search for fame, professional jealousies etc that > have arisen in the explosion of 20th century science that has led to > the need for peer-review. According to http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2006/11/15/lstrongglemgpart_one_l_emg_if_peer_revie , "Albert Einstein's key 1905 papers were published in the German review Annalen der Physik without any review other than the approval of editors Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien. Of course, it can justly be argued that Planck, known for Planck's Constant, and Wien, known for Wien's law, were Einstein's peers." I sincerely doubt Planck or Wien would have just approved a paper without even reading it (the editor has, at the very least, the duty of searching and correcting for typos). Of course, the same method is impossible today, where about 100000 papers are published each month in indexed journals. Miguel Rios
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 12 Apr 2010 11:47 harald wrote on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 04:23:02 -0700: > On Apr 4, 1:37 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> harald wrote on Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:40:11 -0700: >> >> >> >> > On Apr 2, 5:27 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> Wendy Warr, an associate editor for ACS, gave a bleak and blistering >> >> critique on the current state of peer-review at the recent ACS >> >> National. >> >> >> Problems with Peer-Review: >> >> >> * It can delay publications for months. * An editor can make or >> >> break a paper by sending it to the author's >> >> friends or competitors. >> >> * Historically biased against women, single authors, etc... * It >> >> costs reviewers' time (she gave a statistic that 41% of >> >> reviewers would like to be paid). >> >> * Reviewers tend to favor conservative science and not far-out >> >> new >> >> ideas. >> >> * Difficult finding qualified reviewers for multidisciplinary >> >> work. * Basing the quality of a paper on 2 reviewers, basically >> >> just >> >> 2-data points, is statistically insignificant. >> >> * As more papers are being submitted the burden for reviewers is >> >> increasing. >> >> >> She forgot an important problem: peer-review is useless at detecting >> >> fraud. For instance all the papers involved in the Schön scandal >> >> (considered the "Biggest Fraud in Physics") were peer-reviewed. >> >> >> Warr did not give many solutions to these problems. A set of >> >> solutions to the problems of peer-review is given in the report >> >> "Science in the 21st century: social, political, and economic >> >> issues". >> >> >> Additional info and references are given in Mitch blog entry: "ACS – >> >> Day 4: Peer-Review Reviewed" >> >> >> You can state your opinion, share your experience, submit your own >> >> proposal for solving the problems, etc. >> >> > [..] >> >> > Here's another one that says it all - (and yes this is the 21st >> > century!): >> >> > "Alternative Peer Review: >> > Quality Management for 21st Century Scholarship" >> >> >www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/APR-1.ppt >> >> > Harald >> >> Very informative! I am glad that confirms manyo of the fingings in my >> report (the author also chose the Schön scandal as illustration of >> fraud in physics!). My own proposal to improve Peer-Review is a kind of >> mixture of (Slide 43) "Open Peer Review" plus "Commentary-based" > > Especially "commentary-based" seems to be a good option (slide 53). > > Note: if you decide to submit your own papers to such a type of review, > you should be prepared for a more public exposure to negative > criticism... > >> Please could you post your message in the blog >> >> http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/ca... >> >> for that your useful reference can remain there archived? >> >> Thanks. > > "comments closed" ... Sorry, It was open until last Friday I think. I myself submitted a copy and paste of your useful message before was closed. If you think that something was missed from your message or you want to add something more, let me know and it will be opened again. > Harald > >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/ca... -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 12 Apr 2010 11:52
paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 05:42:31 -0700: > On 11 abr, 13:44, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> On Apr 9, 11:12 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> Einstein's famous 1905 papers were NOT peer reviewed by Planck or Wien: >> they were not reviewed at all! The procedure in German physics at that >> time was that an unknown author's FIRST paper only was reviewed (to >> ensure his competence). After he had jumped that hurdle, an honor >> system was used, trusting gentlemen to only submit professional quality >> material. Quality was the professional measure - not quantity of papers >> published. >> It is the greed, search for fame, professional jealousies etc that have >> arisen in the explosion of 20th century science that has led to the >> need for peer-review. > > According to > http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2006/11/15/lstrongglemgpart_one_l_emg_if_peer_revie > , "Albert Einstein's key 1905 papers were published in the German review > Annalen der Physik without any review other than the approval of editors > Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien. Of course, it can justly be argued that > Planck, known for Planck's Constant, and Wien, known for Wien's law, > were Einstein's peers." > > I sincerely doubt Planck or Wien would have just approved a paper > without even reading it (the editor has, at the very least, the duty of > searching and correcting for typos). Of course, the same method is > impossible today, where about 100000 papers are published each month in > indexed journals. > > Miguel Rios I suppose that they were read, but sure they were not reviewed. As pointed in my reply, then the burden of proof was on oponents to new ideas. Just a fact, neither Planck or Wien noticed that Einstein 1905 paper on SR did not contain a single reference to previous work on relativity. In some sense both may be blamed by that mistake. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |