Posted on 02/14/2006 9:18:41 PM PST by AndrewC
It isn't about research anymore, or verifiable statistics, or case studies with large control groups.
It's all about the politics, baby.
All we have to reasonably evaluate papers before publication is peer review. The author himself submits to peer review, in many cases, before submitting the paper to the journal by letting colleagues see the paper. Still, it is possible for an error to escape detection, and the error could be anything from a math error that few would be equipped to detect in the first place, to an error in reasoning due to a subtle fallacy that even fewer would be equipped to detect. It's not perfect even with the best of intentions, but what else can be done?
'Peer Review' is a misnomer. It's elitist control of the standards of debate, denying visibility to facts and ideas that are dangerous to the status quo.
"It's something that's held "absolutely sacred" in a field where people rarely accept anything with "blind faith," says Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and now CEO of UnitedHealth Europe and board member of PLoS. "It's very unscientific, really."
Funny stuff!
Peer review in the humanities was politicized long ago. There are journals I wouldn't send an article to on a bet, because they would reject it without bothering to look at it.
I'm afraid that there has been more and more politicization in the sciences, as well. That has always been the case to some degree, of course. Orthodox scientists with a stake in an accepted theory, for instance, aren't anxious to see it questioned or refuted. But nowadays the politics is much more widespread, because it involves leftist ideology and government grants supervised by ideologues. Foundation grants as well, I'm afraid.
Thank you for the ping.
The problem with peer review is the problem with any system. It ultimately is political and is only as ethical as the people heading the heap. It is also subject to ideological motivations. If they don't like you, don't like what you're talking about or disagree on ideological grounds, you won't get reviewed. The article smells of something.. mostly handwringing.
These publications are political and cultural tools of the left. This is why I grow so tired of people on evolutionary threads stating "ID or creationist scientific research is not published in major journals"
I wonder why?
Howard Dean gets more respect as a physician than Behe ever does as a brilliant biochemist.
Yep. And I wonder how many Republican ideas would be peer reviewed if Democrats were in charge of the review process.. Oops, I think we have a 40 year long example from which to draw on that point. And it largely came down on ideological lines.. hmm.. lol. But, evos are above such things.. (eye rolling) *snort*
Thanks for the ping!
yes, and to think this same strategy is not recognized by some conservatives when it comes to Darwin!
"I contend that modern research in an academic setting no longer permits this patient scholarship and we have lost something as a result."
I think you are right professor. Of course, new information is being accumulated at an every increasing speed. It is really difficult to stay on top of it. Seems that more scientists should stop trying to post in the "top" journals and settle for something less prestigous.
Indeed. Annual reviews have helped, but the sheer proliferation in journals, let alone articles can be intimidating. For all this, however, is the number of seminal articles proportionately greater?
The very forces driving the flood of publications are the ones which overwhelm us, and we spend too much time sifting dross in hopes of finding a few flecks of gold.
Maybe there should be a quota on publications. Like the WWII posters we should be secure enough in our professions to ask, "Is this paper necessary?"
Forgive me but then what good is it?
When my work is reviewed or I review the work of another the big thing we are looking for is error and/or fraud.
If peer reviewed means nothing more then "We found this idea interesting" then it becomes worthless as measure as to the value of the data presented.
"Maybe there should be a quota on publications. Like the WWII posters we should be secure enough in our professions to ask, 'Is this paper necessary?'"
I agree, but, of course, it will never happen. The young ones coming up are not "secure" enough, emotionally.
Depends on whos living in the hen house..
The chickens or the weasles.. When the clucking stops..
The guano has hit the fan..
I guess the cluck stops here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.