The System of Scientific publishing

Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it better than no peer review at all? Hell yes.Science is not immune to the human element. We all hold the method and data as ideals, but at the same time we are all people with emotions and personal pride. Yes, there is a politics of science. It can even devolve into child-like playground insults. I've seen it happen. Anecdotally, I watched a grad student melt into a puddle of tears right on stage. She was giving a oral presentation at a big conference after which there is always an open floor Q&A. A prominent scientist stepped up and just started bullying her because her findings contradicted his own. This type of stuff happens, for better or worse.With that in mind, conferences are the way to go to expose what you consider bad science. If someone publishes a paper that is wrong and concludes that your life's work is bollocks then present their work at a conference and show that it is wrong using your own findings. I have seen this done several times (including the sob story above). The reason that a conference is a good place for this type of exposure is that a lot of the big hitters in your field will probably be there if you choose the right conference. These are the same people that will probably be reviewing your future papers, and maybe even your grants. These are also the same people that you are speaking to in your papers. No one else in the world probably gives two cents about your research, but those scientists do.Yes, there is chest thumping. Yes, there is posturing and preening. However, at the end of the day the data does win the day.

I'll second that.

It would then seem incumbent on Trebino to publish new research that addresses the criticisms and demonstrates that FROG does indeed work.I didn't read all of Trebino's rather long whinge, but I did come across this abstract which seems to be the letter he was trying to get published before.

It works in the vast majority of cases. One of the frustrations is the "black box" nature of the whole process. You would really like to know what is going on inside the heads of the reviewers, if only to improve the paper for the next submission. For example, a peer of mine had a really tough time getting a paper published. Each time he submitted the paper he would be told that if certain revisions were made and if certain experiments were done it would be publishable. He made all of the revisions, and the additional experiments he ran all supported his conclusions. The paper was rejected again with a list of all new revisions that needed to be made and a list of different experiments that needed to be done. It was a lot like Lucy pulling the football at the last minute. It gets really frustrating.If anything, I would like to see an accredited third party review board that can review contentious papers and settle these disputes between editor and author. At the same time, journals who employ jackholes will get fewer and fewer submissions and the overall quality of their journal will decline. They do have to walk a fine line between quality control and volume, but it can tip too far in one direction at times.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.