Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Refereed (peer reviewed) Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 24 (452691)
01-31-2008 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
01-31-2008 12:53 AM


If creationists or the ID movement could show a stream of good quality papers that had been unfairly rejected this subject migbt be relevant. However, they cannot. If they had, then maybe the attempt to create an ID journal (PCID) would have been less of a failure.
The peer review system is not perfect but the attacks on it from the ID movement are just an attempt to cover up the fact that they don't produce much worthy of publication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 12:53 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 1:58 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-31-2008 2:24 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 24 (452698)
01-31-2008 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
01-31-2008 1:58 AM


Re: did you read the article?
I had read the paper when it first came out and knew that it did not address the major issue in the question of whether ID research is being unfairly suppressed. Flaws in the peer review process cannot affect papers that do not exist or are never submitted for review. Nor can it be said that the review process is wrong to reject papers of low quality. It must also be acknowledged that it is not unusual for papers to be rejected - many papers go through a series of submissions before being accepted (especially those submitted to Science and Nature, which have very high rejection rates).
On rereading it it seem that Tipler has a bad case of sour grapes. What little he says about the papers you appear to mean does not convince me of their quality - quite the reverse. Indeed it sounds to me as if Tipler is failing to distinguish between proof and speculation - and religious apologetics.
quote:
...he was nearly denied tenure and was denied grants because of his ID or creationist stances, in physics though, not biology.
That is seriously confused. Firstly the risk to tenure he mentions is simply a lack of grants, so to list the two as separate is misleading. Secondly Tipler only cites one reviewer as being concerned about his views - and those were his views on extra-terrestrial intelligence, not ID. We can't tell from that little anecdote how important that concern was, or even if other reviewers shared it (nor how it relates to the grants). And to top it all Tipler attribute the reviewers attitude to papers (plural) that were published. If the peer review process is so badly broken, how did that happen ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 1:58 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 2:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 24 (452725)
01-31-2008 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
01-31-2008 2:46 AM


Re: did you read the article?
Winston Churchill said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." and it may well be that peer review is the worst system - except for the alternatives.
It does not guarantee that bad papers will not be published - or that unorthodox papers will not be published either. Many - perhaps all - of the papers you list have been published. To say that a paper was rejected only says that one journal turned it down. It does not mean that publication was blocked forever.
Even papers that are both unorthodox and bad can be published.
So the answer to the question is "neither".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 2:46 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 3:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 24 (452883)
01-31-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
01-31-2008 3:31 PM


Re: did you read the article?
I very much doubt that Churchill meant a "pure democracy".
And surely Tipler's proposals would tend to make it more like a "social clique" at the level of publication. If you object to that, then why support Tipler ?
It also seems that he wants research funding to be made much more subject to political control. I can't see that as a good idea. It seems that that would make it easier for special interests to suppress research they don't like or to support research they do like - regardless of scientific merit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 3:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 5:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 24 (452894)
01-31-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
01-31-2008 5:35 PM


Re: did you read the article?
His proposal allows a relatively few people to dictate that a paper will be published. That's why it will make it more of a social clique.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 5:35 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 6:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 24 (452910)
01-31-2008 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
01-31-2008 6:31 PM


Re: did you read the article?
quote:
Not really. He still allows for the old system but makes room for another tier to consider papers that more greatly challenge existing paradigms
And that additional system means that a paper only needs a few supporters to get publication. Just like I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 6:31 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024