The question you raised about peer review in scientific research can be a topic of debate, as it involves both validation of data and regulation of ideas. While the peer review process plays an important role in ensuring the quality and integrity of scientific research, it is not a perfect system and can have limitations in terms of validation of data and regulation of ideas. The ultimate goal should be to encourage a constructive and open dialogue among researchers, reviewers, and the scientific community, in order to advance knowledge and understanding of the world.

@Ajit Singh

Thank you for your reply and engaging in this discussion I apologise for any offence in my original reply to you.

In my opinion the purpose of research is to explore ideas. My use of the phrase “regulation of ideas” in my question is indicative of all that is wrong with our science and is an anathema to me.

Science is not a body of truth; science is a process for the identification and elimination of error. This is achieved by matching data to ideas, the better the data quality the sharper is the dissection knife of discrimination.

History of Science gives us repeated examples of this process that ultimately results in a paradigm shift, an event where the corpus of received wisdom is shown to be incomplete and not fit for purpose. For example, in Astronomy we have the replacement of an Earth-centred Ptolemaic System by the Sun-centred Copernican System. Two competing ideas that were adjudicated by the discriminating high-quality observational data collected by Tycho Brahe.

In my own field of Geoscience, the concept of static continents and geosynclinal sediments was replaced by plate tectonics and paleo-ocean sediments. This paradigm shift was in no small part due to the high-quality magnetic data collected over the mid-ocean ridges that showed the young age and growth sequence of the ocean basins.

The detailed observational data being collected by the James Webb telescope will in my view eventually result in the creation of a new cosmology paradigm. In all of this science data is king, not ideas.

In my opinion, the purpose of research is to challenge the complacency of received wisdom and to facilitate the process of human development by the unfettered exploration of ideas.

Hello Philip Mulholland

I think you make an excellent point and I have endeavoured to do this a bit - to use science/publication to challenge what many people think, believe and accept. That probably explains why I am such a supporter of humble Letters to the Editor - because it makes scientists and authors accountable. Peer review is part of that process, of course.

To whom are they accountable?

The people. There are many people who do not have this opportunity and also depend on this for their existence. Which they do not realise.

@Ajit Singh

I apologise to you for failing to notice that it was I who introduced to this discussion the phrase "regulation of ideas"

The Latin sentiment Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? "Who will watch the watchmen?" is the fundamental basis of my concerns and I believe lies at the root of the modern paralysis of science by unaccountable gatekeepers.

Philp