Posted on 02/11/2010 5:27:16 PM PST by neverdem
Peer-review was meant to be a safeguard against the publication of bad science but the balance is shifting towards open access
--snip--
Others are tougher. The Royal Society in London demands full data disclosure from contributors to its Philosophical Transactions.
Schneider told the Guardian there might be some middle ground especially over researchers' highly prized and personally written computer codes. Maybe, like commercial patents, they should be allowed exclusive use of their own codes, as their own intellectual property, for two or three years. That, he said, would be time enough to "publish the initial papers using their hard work". But after that, the codes should all be disclosed. He added: "This broad discussion about the boundaries of data transparency, personal codes and exclusive rights... may be the only positive that might emerge from this unfortunate incident."
But many sceptics are not satisfied with such half-way houses. Many sceptic bloggers are in full cry against the entire peer review process. They talk about "peer-to-peer" review. Meaning an end to centralised control through journals and a free for all in which everything is published and anyone can comment on anything. A journalist active in this movement, the West Coast former street artist and radical arts critic Patrick Courrielche, claims: "Climategate... triggered the death of unconditional trust in the scientific peer-review process, and the maturing of a new movement of peer-to-peer review."
Can an entirely free intellectual market deliver better science? Can the pioneers of scientific review on the blogosphere do better than the journals? Would this ensure quality control or shatter it? Should the Jeffrey Archers of the scientific world have as much access to the journals as the Nobel laureates? They may shudder in the labs, but we may one day find out.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Whaq’s to peer review ? isn’t the original data gone ?
Get the word out!
Let’s face facts. In the case of the IPCC the peer to peer review on the internet has resulted in a big rethink. Never again will a peer reviewed article that is published by a journal or NGO be considered reviewed until the internet has had a chance to work on the original data and background info.
thanks
I don’t think they need a “peer review”. They need a whole ****load of new thermometers with an easy to read and understand operator’s manual.
No the original data is there. Their data after they manipulated the data is what is gone. So the original data for some of their figures and graphs are gone.
“Reform of peer review” my ass! Peer review worked fine up until lately. You can’t reform a process being employed by dishonest people.
I remain skeptical. The first article of the series was called, “Battle over climate data turned into war between scientists and sceptics.” Right away, anyone who supports the AGW theory is a scientist, and anyone who disagrees with the theory is not a scientist. Never mind that tens of thousands of scientists do not agree with the theory. I’ll read the rest of it, but I expect a whitewash.
What’s your field, and how its conclusions different than the publicly funded science? If it’s proprietary that’s fine, but I have a back and forth with a buddy of mine about this subject and could always use more ammo.
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.