Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
→kidding right?: Not kidding. People lose their jobs when they upset the applecart.
I don't deny it. But Ed seems to be assigning some sinister motive on the part of the journals - suppressing new results - which isn't necessarily true. There is a reason why the currently-popular paradigm is currently popular - it's because that explanation is the one that, in the opinion of the majority of researchers in that field, best fits the available data. Any findings which run counter to the paradigm need to have exceptionally good evidence to support them. A journal won't want to run a "The current paradigm is completely wrong" paper if there's any chance that it will turn out that the paper is wrong, because that reflects badly on the journal's editor. In summary, the peer review system isn't perfect, but Ed's wording there presents a highly biased point of view (which is, of course, contrary to conservapedia rules). [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't deny it. But Ed seems to be assigning some sinister motive on the part of the journals - suppressing new results - which isn't necessarily true. There is a reason why the currently-popular paradigm is currently popular - it's because that explanation is the one that, in the opinion of the majority of researchers in that field, best fits the available data. Any findings which run counter to the paradigm need to have exceptionally good evidence to support them. A journal won't want to run a "The current paradigm is completely wrong" paper if there's any chance that it will turn out that the paper is wrong, because that reflects badly on the journal's editor. In summary, the peer review system isn't perfect, but Ed's wording there presents a highly biased point of view (which is, of course, contrary to conservapedia rules). [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not assigning sinister motives, but I do recall multiple instances of scientists whose papers were rejected - for reasons other than shoddy research or poor writing. ''Science'' and ''Nature'' do it all the time. And journal editors have been forced to resign for daring to publish well-written, carefully researched studies.
:This is nothing new. The history of science is littered with it. I'm reading [[Farley Mowat]]'s 1963 book ''Never Cry Wolf'', in which he exposes prejudice in the scientific establishment in Canada. People lose their jobs when they upset the applecart, especially when they use the leverage of facts (see [[Whistleblower]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)