Changes

==Academic publishing and commercial publishing==

==Academic publishing and commercial publishing==

"University presses and other academic publishers routinely put scholarly works through a rigorous peer review. But that is not necessarily true of commercial publishers."<ref> [http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/disarming-history/3 Disarming History]</ref> (See the [[Michael Bellesiles]] incident.)

"University presses and other academic publishers routinely put scholarly works through a rigorous peer review. But that is not necessarily true of commercial publishers."<ref>[http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/disarming-history/3 Disarming History]</ref> (See the [[Michael Bellesiles]] incident.)

==Theology of Peer Review==

==Theology of Peer Review==

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote:

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote:

:The combination of increased scale and diminished emphasis on unique talent is, from a certain point of view, a devastating combination which greatly increases the potential for the political direction of science, and the creation of dependent constituencies. With these new constituencies, such obvious controls as peer review and detailed accountability begin to fail and even serve to perpetuate the defects of the system. Miller (2007) specifically addresses how the system especially favors dogmatism and conformity.<ref> [http://ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/30/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/ Climate Science: Is It Designed To Answer Questions?]</ref>

:The combination of increased scale and diminished emphasis on unique talent is, from a certain point of view, a devastating combination which greatly increases the potential for the political direction of science, and the creation of dependent constituencies. With these new constituencies, such obvious controls as peer review and detailed accountability begin to fail and even serve to perpetuate the defects of the system. Miller (2007) specifically addresses how the system especially favors dogmatism and conformity.<ref>[http://ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/30/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/ Climate Science: Is It Designed To Answer Questions?]</ref>

==Peer review and [[due diligence]]==

==Peer review and [[due diligence]]==

==Time taken for Peer Review==

==Time taken for Peer Review==

The time taken for the peer review varies with the subject and the paper, but it not usually very long and some magazines aim for an ''average'' of 28 days from submission to decision. <ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T7H-4HHWW4J-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a7c00b5c0df5183cb9c02d162a4828ee 28 days from submission to decision.]</ref>  The actual time taken by the reviewer is much ''shorter'' and varies from five hours <ref>[http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/documents/PRCPeerReviewSummaryReport-final-e-version.pdf Five hour Peer Review]</ref> to one and a half hours. <ref>[http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3110x.htm One-and-a-half hour Peer Review ]</ref>. Obviously more important papers will tend to be reviewed first.

The time taken for the peer review varies with the subject and the paper, but it not usually very long and some magazines aim for an ''average'' of 28 days from submission to decision.<ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T7H-4HHWW4J-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a7c00b5c0df5183cb9c02d162a4828ee 28 days from submission to decision.]</ref>  The actual time taken by the reviewer is much ''shorter'' and varies from five hours <ref>[http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/documents/PRCPeerReviewSummaryReport-final-e-version.pdf Five hour Peer Review]</ref> to one and a half hours.<ref>[http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3110x.htm One-and-a-half hour Peer Review ]</ref>  Obviously more important papers will tend to be reviewed first.

==See also==

==See also==

*[http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66  Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science] - Steve McIntyre

*[http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66  Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science] - Steve McIntyre

* Kulikovsky, Andrew, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5613 Creationism, Science and Peer Review] 2nd February 2008 (Creation Ministries International) (Documents some problems with and limitations of peer review).

* Kulikovsky, Andrew, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5613 Creationism, Science and Peer Review] 2 February 2008 (Creation Ministries International) (Documents some problems with and limitations of peer review).

==References==

==References==