I do find it the idea of "peer review" problematic In Physics for several reasons. I understand the need to avoid from accepting non-sense and therefore recruiting those people to stand guard and to "examine carefully" . Here are the problems in ones view.
1. Suppose one is the "elite" in a given field it does not make sense to send his/her work by reviewers who are not "elite" . Similar to how an Olympic Medalist performance would not be evaluated by teenagers.
2. Suppose one is the "elite" in a given field it does not make sense to send his/her work to not "elite" reviewers, as the they might be Jealous and therefore prevent him/her from recognition and reject it on a false cause/with no cause at all.
3. Suppose one is "elite" in a given field it does not make sense to send his/her work to not "elite" reviewers, as the they might not be able to understand it.
4. Those "scientific body-guards" Prevent the complete freedom of expression, by the overwhelming power they get to decide and to censor. Science can only move forward when the freedom of expression is complete. "Peer review" is not allowing it.
5. In Physics, the guy who sent the paper that unified physics with no doubt, got his work rejected by moderators of ArXiv and of Physics letters A due to formatting issues. It just show you how terrible the system is.
Please only replay if you are in physics.
This is an issue in all fields, not just physics. Contrary to your statements, reviewers usually are of high academic standards. They do not have overwhelming power because they are moderated by the editor. I will reject a paper that is poorly formatted or has poor grammar because it's just such hard work to review. Authors should at least get their papers professionally formatted and proof read :)
Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman Thanks for commenting. In relation to your short comment, which only partly addressed the points I was making:
1."usually are of high academic standards". Define High by rigor. The fact you chose to use the word "usually" solidify my points, you can interact with low caliber reviewers who can not see beyond formatting issues. therefore skip some important breakthroughs.
2. "They do not have overwhelming power because they are moderated by the editor". They moderation usually takes place after the pre-selection, in which the editor is not involved as far as one knows.
3. Authors should at least get their papers professionally formatted and proof read. agreed.
The peer review system for research papers is just a way for academics keep everyone else and any competition out.
- To be taken seriously, any new science theory has to be published as an article in a reputable journal.
- To be published in a reputable journal, the author must be in academia or associated with academia. Having a PhD helps.
As a result, it is almost impossible to get a physics article published as an independent researcher.
As I could not get published in a physics journal, I put my research online at here at researchgate.net My papers have have now attracted >180,000 views and >45,000 downloads there. That's a lot more than the average PhD thesis. All the right companies are reading the research and I'm getting useful feedback. It's a contrast to the academics who were arrogant and insulting, calling me a crackpot etc....
The peer review system is obsolete and useless, as are many academics whoa are protecting it. Avoid academics and universities for physics. They are not progressing knowledge.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning