1,266
edits
Changes
→Can we write a better header?
:For nearly a dozen years, I have seen abuse of the [[peer review]] process by supporters of [[global warming]] and opponents of [[DDT]]. We need to expose these abuses, by comparing them to the way science is actually supposed to work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:46, 5 December 2009 (EST)
:For nearly a dozen years, I have seen abuse of the [[peer review]] process by supporters of [[global warming]] and opponents of [[DDT]]. We need to expose these abuses, by comparing them to the way science is actually supposed to work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:46, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::Eloquently put, and I can sympathize with this viewpoint, although I don't follow science journals enough (or have any kind of ability to judge their quality) to have an opinion about much of what you wrote. Sure, all of these concerns belong in the article, but the header itself gives no definition of peer-review which satisfies the basic encyclopedic curiosity of a person wanting to understand the subject. That, it seems to me, is what a header should do.
::Peer-review is a basic fact of life for academics, and for all its flaws, it's a better check on academic rigor than that of book publishers, which typically chooses titles based on marketability. I can only speak for my field on this one, but I see peer-review working pretty robustly in music journals. Does that mean that they're not susceptible to fads, or that I've never been amazed at how wrong-headed an article has been? Of course not, on both counts. But I'm also not alone when I vehemently disagree, and the same journals happily print well-written rebuttals by other experts. But I've never been able to complain about the basic quality and academic soundness.
::That's what I think is missing from CP's discussion. At least based on my experience, I disagree that peer-review is meant to correct someone's work, or to catch subtle errors. It's possible to have an academically-sound article that is dead wrong, and it's not the job of peer-review to decide that. If it's sound, original, and adds something thought-provoking to the dialogue, it will likely get printed, and it's up to the readers to decide if it's convincing or not. While it may seem that the same circle of authors gets published over-and-over, that's because reputation matters, not because it's some good-old-boy's network. If someone has done a lot of excellent work in a particular specialized field, they are more likely to get published without much difficulty. If someone is new to the circle, but does good and original work, the peer-review process will likely give them the legitimacy that helps them buid a reputation, and more importantly, to become a vital part of the dialogue.
::In short, I wish this article didn't poison the well from the first sentence. There's a wisdom to the peer-review process, and the criticisms you mention would be much more effective if this article explained the benefits, and then gave ''specific'' cases of abuse rather than bald allegations of bias which are unprovable. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:53, 6 December 2009 (EST)