[meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon May 8 14:41:09 2006
Message-ID: <263.9e338b8.3190eaaf_at_aol.com>

Hola Gary and others

Yes, usually with independent peer review you have to make all the reviewers
happy by answering their sometimes dumb questions but your sometimes erroneous
statements, poor exposition, ambiguous statements, flawed graphs, etc.
Frequently, each reviewer gets a separate copy of your work to review and
independently reviews it blindly - then all the corrections and clarifications are
forwarded to you from the editor to clean up or overhaul. So you can see that
there is no jury coming to a verdict, just a bunch of sometimes friendly and
sometimes overly enthusiastic scientists defending their territory in the diverse
details with pens who suffer from all of the benefits and vices people have
and who sometimes delight in pointing out errors they find. If the editor
properly picks a set of expert independent peer reviewers, the review can be more
rigorous than a trip to the dentist, even if you have good teeth (If he
doesn't, well let's ignore that). While the system has weaknesses in that if the
editor likes you, there is the potential for issues that might not be too
critical to be glossed over, or there may be so few available reviewers who may
become friendly with the I scratch your back now and you mine later, it is the best
we 've got. On the other hand, if one applies the scientific method
rigorously and considers all the literature relating to the theme, even an aggressive
reviewer can be mostly neutralized by good work.

If you can think of another system that works better, you deserve a Nobel
Prize. Remember, when a reviewer is asked to review someone else's work, they
are usually not paid and may just feel a responsibility to the temple of science
even if they are hopelessly swamped with their own work (There is no
recognition for "papers reviewed". In exchange, they usually remain anonymous, and
get to keep up with publications before they hit the press, and sometimes get
ideas from their review work that can help them advance related studies.

The moderating of this process falls on the editor's shoulders where the buck
stops. The editor has a reputation to defend and a lot riding on his or her
ability to churn out quality work in the journal periodically, and this is the
system of checks and balances we have.

Saludos, Doug

PS, incontrovertible is synonomous with perfect. The peer review system does
not demand that. It demands defensible work. Imagine where we would be 100
years later if we held Einstein to the standard you favor. Relativity would
never have been published, and still with all the effort in these last 100
years has its holes and would remain unacceptable and unpublishable. Not a very
good scenario, I think you'd agree.
Received on Mon 08 May 2006 02:40:47 PM PDT