1,266
edits
Changes
→Can we write a better header?: new section
Also, their is the ''incestuous'' effect of passing around a paper about a controversial new theor only to '''supporters''' of that theory. Anyone with an ounce of sense in their head would realize that supporters would tend to harbor (at least unconscious) [[bias]] in favor of the theory, making their "review" utterly useless. The [[hockey stick graph]] is a case in point. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:27, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Also, their is the ''incestuous'' effect of passing around a paper about a controversial new theor only to '''supporters''' of that theory. Anyone with an ounce of sense in their head would realize that supporters would tend to harbor (at least unconscious) [[bias]] in favor of the theory, making their "review" utterly useless. The [[hockey stick graph]] is a case in point. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:27, 3 December 2009 (EST)
== Can we write a better header? ==
I just found this article for the first time, and am a little non-plussed by the first sentence - not because I disagree with this statement, mind you, but because nowhere in the article is there an actual definition of what peer review actually is.
We need to find a way to either make this definition inclusive -- after all, journals from all academic fields (including music) use peer review -- or else, this should be reworked into an essay as to why peer review is a problem.
Any suggestions? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:38, 3 December 2009 (EST)