Dear Kristof,

You raise a controversial issue and want to thank you for this.

I know quite well the case your refer to -- the so-called 'Sokal Squared hoax" -- and was shoocked by the fact that the focal paper, written in a confusing language, has been accepted to be published because it passed the review process, even though the manuscript were, so to speak, mere verbiage. This seems to show that apparently innovative papers may be easily published even when they say nothing significant at all. This also shows that social and human sciences are really soft sciences. A paper similar to this one on the field of physics or biology, for example, would certainly be rejected priori to any peer-revivew system.

This fact also shows us that we should look cautiously at the peer-review system, mainly in the field of social and human sciences. Does this means that the peer-blind review system should be broken? Not necessarily. But, again, we should look at it with caution. As I see it, there is much inbreeding in the so called peer-blind review system. For example, I experienced some difficulties while publishing a paper that cast some doubts on a perspective advanced, say, by "sacred cows" in a certain domain of psychological knowledge. I think that some of the initial reviewers also espoused such a perspective and that they knew that I was the author of the focal manuscript. Accordingly, the review was not blind and I had to perform five revisi

It may be the case that open (=not anonymous) peer review is a good alternative. However, this alternative may not go either without some problems. For example, it can give rise to revenge, which I hate. Maybe it can be case that the peer-blind review system is not a good system but it is the best of all review systems. How could it be ameliored? Let's wait for other answers to your question.

I take the liberty of sending you a paper I wrote with a colleague and that is related to the sad reality you mention. Sorry, this paper was not sense because I do not have it in my computer, but you can read it in my publications on RG. Its title is; "Towards the Desokalization...."

Kind regards.

Orlando

Dear Kristof Jacobs

I have never found the peer reviewing process anything very much positive (and certainly nothing attractive). In the social sciences, the "peers" are so incredibly steeped in the status quo (and, also: basically history, and simply honoring that "for its own sake") that they cannot, in any significant way, "think out of the box". This means that if you are not for the most part "in the box", they are not going to support you. They may not even find you intelligible despite clear, real, and strong empirical foundations and totally provable/disprovable hypotheses (e.g. see me, my writings -- all related and about 700 pages here on researchgate).

The nature of "the box" can be indicated by no focus on, interest in, OR knowledge of, or real perception/"sense" of, the 'assumptions' virtually always used (or at least framing questions), though the central ones (which ARE central, in their thought systems) are both UNPROVEN and LIKELY false. [ They are not real, proper assumptions, properly established, but a product (often) of Western philosophy and its modi operandi -- which uses major false presumptions (as assumptions) and making/taking needless (unnecessary and inherently not empirical, aka insufficiently empirical) positions (premises/models). Their too-early (too-soon) systems of thought of their own making are way too divorced from the Subject .] These 'assumptions' support models that are highly just-"thought-up" and (relatedly) of a VERY hypotheco-deductive nature; THIS, even though their is obviously a lack of agreement on their basic correspondence(s) with phenomenology -- showing that good, most-basic findings have still not been found. As almost then a matter of course: This also leads to accepting very low (actually: false and artificial) standards for "empiricism" (with the strong need for both "success" and statistical analysis -- to [supposedly] see that any thing is any thing). [ We must start realizing we are limited by our method, MAINLY AS WE ARE LIMITED BY/TO rash "hypotheses" investigated experimentally. IN CONTRAST: Fact is, you are not so time-and-setting limited (i.e. to your lab), if you are doing other major empirical work: observation, with inter-rater reliability. ]

These problems with these "peers" is also reflected in ENDLESS STUPID (hopelessly ill-framed) never-ending, never-progressing questions (often ones that are too general and far from the "source", the Subject). A major one that comes to mind is: "What is the nature of consciousness?" (a question having, in fact, quite variable answers (multiple 'answers' in multiple 'settings', at different points in ontogeny)), BUT not answers that are confused (or too "complex"), unless YOU are effectively confused. [ One might also note the actually silly endless (and actually totally unnecessary) nature/nurture debates -- I can and have shown them (in my writings) unnecessary, AND "solved" (though perhaps not in the 'thoughtful' manner you are familiar with -- but WITH THE BEST EMPIRICISM). ]

The old-time philosophers would be proud of these "social scientists" (e.g. Psychology theorists and researchers), basically continuing in their (these philosophers') main veins of presumption and way to much deciding on things ("definitions") with manipulations OF THEIR crude REPRESENTATIONS in their mind -- the latter with WAY too little consideration of the Subject (which is obvious, to any reasonable well--grounded and founded empiricist).

Let me say more about the basic (ridiculous, ignorant, and stupid) situation:

In "learning theory", the basic types of learning are considered to show the same patterning (and much of the same core content) throughout development. This is outrageously implausible, AND this is not to mention basically pretending "someone" (or some thing in that role) is "presenting" the "stimuli" and the "reinforcement", etc. In fact, the organism most certainly is FINDING these things ("for itself"). The fact that we do not think in terms of learning type 1, type 2, etc., tells of problems (EVEN WITH THE SIMPLE, BASICALLY KNOWN, ASSOCIATIVE LEARNINGS WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH, which ARE ubiquitous [ though the content and ways used are not ]. So, even given this very last-mentioned position, that ALONE saves us NOT. The few learnings we do understand and see realistically ARE basically "not-everything" ENOUGH: learn about the nature of the Memories for a lot of good perspective: the Memories, AS DEFINED, are experience itself -- come to know those, and think of those with associative learnings; AND ALSO: allow for some likely, subtle, and empirically PROVABLE innate guidances with ontogeny to complete the basic "picture") The hypotheses I cite are testable (provable/disprovable). I have found a way, I believe, to be WAY more empirically-founded than others, and (I believe) SUFFICIENTLY EMPIRICAL, i.e. clearly, expressly empirical as much as possible.

(It is possible both you and the system are not free enough to ever examine it or be able to get into it, though it is as clear as anything (or more).)

THUS, yet (damn it), see my LIFE WORKS (the many hundreds of pages, referred to above, and much found via the links below): This solves very many of the problems noted AND provides for well-founding and progress: Of my writings, especially see:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory

THEN see especially:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ AND , very importantly (for the a first view of the fuller perspective) :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328201788_Essentially_all_Recent_Essays_on_Ethogram_Theory

[

The huge problem with replacing anonymous peer review with open peer review is that not everyone has the same status. Tenured professors could do open reviews without having to hold back, but how about precarious researchers that do form the bulk of academia ? The risk would be, in my opinion, to reinforce the inequalities between tenured and precarious researchers in the peer-review process itself.

That beig said, the current process is full of flaws. What to replace it with, however, is not clear.