Nobody knows? Or nobody ventures to answer?

I am not sure what you mean by worshipping censorship in science. Do you mean peer-reviewing? If this is the case, my best guess is that journals worry about their reputation (and the money they make), and scientists also worries about their reputation when publishing in this or that journal (which has an impact on their careers). So they feel like they need a kind of filter to ensure the quality of what is being published. The solution is however worse than the imaginary problem of distinguishing science from junk science.

From a Kuhnian perspective, ordinary science operates within a paradigm, a framework of acceptable theories and practices. Resistance against anything outside the paradigm, whether it is junk science or revolutionary science, is part of the normal functioning of ordinary science. Maybe we may think of peer-reviewing as a sociological structure that has naturally emerged to better separate the inside from the outside of the paradigm. The extent to which it hampers the development of revolutionary science is debatable, even without peer-reviewing the paradigm would still exist in the mind of mainstream scientists and thus they would still have difficulties to seriously consider unusual/unexpected theories or practices. To be fair, it is easy to distinguish between fringe science and revolutionary science only long after the revolution has become the new paradigm.

Damien: "Do you mean peer-reviewing?" - yes, of course I mean "peer"-reviewing: this is nothing else but an euphemistic synonym of very drastic and harmful form of censorship!

"my best guess is that journals worry about their reputation (and the money they make)" - rather the latter: few powerful publishers try to monopolize scientific publishing by creating and maintaining the situation in which nothing can be published in editions not controlled by (and bringing profit to) them, or at least where a paper outside of Elsevier, Brill, or Taylor & Francis is "irrelevant" for a scientist's career. I understand them: from their viewpoint a pornographic magazine, a scandal-mongering rag or scientific journal are equally valuable as long as they raise profit; I also understand that most scientists have no choice and must publish in "peer"-reviewed editions - I only do not understand why a scientist can consider it good?

"The solution is however worse than the imaginary problem of distinguishing science from junk science" - exactly!

"The extent to which it hampers the development of revolutionary science is debatable, even without peer-reviewing the paradigm would still exist in the mind of mainstream scientists and thus they would still have difficulties to seriously consider unusual/unexpected theories or practices" - it is a great difference between some "orthodox" scientists being unable to accept something unusual, and a system where the effective publication of unusual (or, as in the current practice, simply contradicting the reviewer's/editor's/publisher's views, directly or indirectly supporting a disliked politician's decisions, proposed by an author "not belonging to the Club", or simply what the reviewer would like to publish under his/her name...) approach, method or conclusion is being made impossible!

"it is easy to distinguish between fringe science and revolutionary science only long after the revolution has become the new paradigm" - this fact (among many others...) makes "peer"-reviewing a destructive system! But, in fact, the censorship makes the distinction difficult even "after the revolution has become the new paradigm": e.g., I have frequently discussions with people considering evolution as a kind of false but "untouchable" "official doctrine", where contradicting facts like the occurrence of humans together with dinosaurs are "well known but concealed" - most of my arguments to prove evolution are usually understood and accepted, but when I argue that every seriously scientific publication proves the reality of evolution and absurdity of "man hunting dinosaurs"-type claims, the answer is invariably: "it is well known that the 'official' publications are censored and the truth is being simply rejected"; of course I know that evolution is a fact and in this case censorship has not been the effective factor, but what could I answer to such claims? can I honestly say, "oh, no, scientific publications are not censored, if somebody find facts contradicting evolution, they would have been published in serious scientific journals"? Unfortunately I cannot, what for my disputant, of course, means that evolution is as "proven" as was the Lysenkoist version of genetics in USSR... In case of evolution such conclusion is not true, but in many others (like, just, with the question of the value of "peer"-reviewing...) it certainly is!

Kenneth: I generally fully agree with you as long as you argue that open review is much better (more honest and more effective) as a way to improve the reviewed paper, but - as you also observe - this is not always the true aim of the reviewer (and, still worse, it is rarely the true aim of the publisher/editor)... Also - but by very far not only - therefore I consider the obligatory "peer"-reviewing system generally wrong and harmful. I have extensively explained my opinion in the (attached: "Peer-reviewing.doc" and "Primary job of a scientist") comments on Loxdale's (who argue similarly to you) and Graur's papers and in other RG discussions (e.g. "Are peer-reviewer's comments really reliable?"). And my question here refers just to that: how a scientist can consider censorship (the real meaning of "peer"-reviewing, even in the most honest - like, as I understand, yours - version!) good, useful, "netto positive"?

It's a quite common practice here in Mexico as well, you try to publish, e.g. a new species on a local journal.. and immediately appear offensive commentaries of reviewers about your work, your lack of something revision or sense of respect to other´s specialists works, etc... it become a "science-done-to-like-referees", and if you disagree with their proposals and comments then you are treated as a rebel and you may be blocked from publish on these journals and even from public invitations... sometimes is not as simple as that, you just realize certain specialists, working groups (a.k.a.: mafias) and of course Universities are behind systematic revisions of others manuscripts on some journals and do not accept for publication any new discovery except if came from themselves...and of course.. later they affirm science is only done by certain Universities in the country and gather all science budget from the government...a shame...

Kenneth: "That would create chaos if applied everywhere" - such "chaos" reigned for centuries (up to the late XX c.), from such "chaos" have emerged all the great scientific theories, discoveries, ideas making now the base of our current knowledge, such "chaos" allowed Newton, Darwin, Einstein and so many other "Giants on whose shoulders we now can stay to see further" produce their revolutionary, uncensored conceptions; in short, it was just this "chaos" which provides a fundamental part of the answer to the question posed some time ago here in RG: "What is the main characteristic that misses to modern scientists compared to the great scientists of the past?" - certainly, one of these main characteristics was that they enjoyed the freedom of working, writing and publishing to "to further knowledge rather than to please editors and referees"!

Kenneth: "you are wandering off into other areas" - no, I only try to show that what you consider "chaos" has in fact been proven as a very good "soil" to produce excellent science!

"some way to prevent the scientific publication of total absurdities is necessary" - first, publication of absurdity is anyway much less destructive than preventing publication of valuable scientific paper; second, the problem is that censorship (obligatory "peer"-reviewing as currently practiced) is neither necessary nor effective in preventing absurdities (see argumentation and examples in my paper attached - as "peer-reviewing.doc" - yesterday) - one suggestion of less destructive but more effective way you could also find in the attached papers, but for your convenience I copy it also here: "what is the solution? Obviously I do not advocate automatic acceptation of any dabblery or charlatanry, I only suggest not to apply the cure which is worse than the malady... I am sure that the “optional” peer-review system would be much more adequate and much less harmful: a submitted paper should be looked through by the editor (concentrating on its scientific value, not on formal “editorial standards”!) – in most cases it will be immediately evident to him/her whether the results are reliable and non-trivial (in which case the paper should be accepted) or not (what would warrant its rejection). Naturally in those (rather rare) instances when the editor suspects serious (scientific!) problems but feels not competent to decide, he/she could ask for the opinion of an “expert” referee, whose conclusions (if negative) should be sent to the author who can either accept them or not – in the latter case it is the editor’s duty and responsibility to evaluate the soundness of the arguments of both sides, and decide to reject the paper (if the “worthlessness” of presented results seems evident) or accept it (otherwise)".

"Were you on Noah's Ark as a referee taking notes?" - sorry, I do not understand what do you mean???

Scientists are not afraid of censorship because they work on the truth that is reproducible thus censorship would not change facts. In fact, censorship does improve the quality of scientific work

It also has to do with power and control of a field; challenges will be punnished just by ignoring it and preventing publication because "me and my pals have the truth".

Delaying a publication by several months or years is already too much dammageable. It is a huge waste of time and energy. It is comparable to spending 90% of our working time to look for money to do our research instead of just doing it.

Kenneth: "Can you itemize a few valuable scientific papers that were censored. Never published" - hahaha! good joke! Or perhaps a sly ambush (if I do "itemize" some, it would mean that I know of them, i.e. they have finally been published; if I do not, you will interpret this as the admission that such situations do not occur...)? Please, don't take me (and other participants in this discussion...) for so hopelessly naive!

And, what did you have in mind with this "Noah's Ark"in your previous comment???

Vera Maura: "challenges will be punnished just by ignoring it and preventing publication because "me and my pals have the truth"" - exactly! This is just what the "peer"-reviewing has been invented and enforced for: "peer-reviewing papers before acceptation for publication is a way applied by the 'elite' to defend its position" - Fred Hoyle (my retranslation from Polish).

Kenneth again: "Potentially valuable papers can be rejected but not for long" - unfortunately, often forever (or even, in my understanding, usually forever: a publication finally "accepted" on the price of introducing undesired (by the author) changes demanded by reviewers/editors, is already not the same paper (and moreover it is not really authored by the person who signed it)! You would perhaps argue that it has been improved, but a simple logic leaves no doubt that - except for rare specific situations - just the opposite is true!

"what is deemed valuable is another question" - certainly! And this is one more reason to reject censorship!

Damien: "Delaying a publication by several months or years is a huge waste of time and energy" - the time and energy of not only the author but also reviewers and editor, in fact four or five scientists, instead of productive scientific work, spend weeks or months on "finding quarrel in a straw" from the one side and fruitless quarrels with editor, re- re- re-submitting the paper (to the same or different journals), introducing enforced but detrimental changes, &c. from the other... All this "in the interest of science" - indeed, "God save us from friends, with enemies we can get along for ourselves"...

Kenneth: "non-existent problem in the real world" - non-existent problem??? So, in your opinion papers are never rejected? Your own first comment proved the opposite...

"It is not a joke to offer evidence for this sort of censorship" - if not a joke then what??? How can you seriously expect me to "itemize" never published papers? How could I have any knowledge about them? The very aim of censorship is just to make the censored paper "non-existent" so that nobody beyond the author and the censor would know of its existence! But my (or anybody's) inability to name concrete cases does not mean that such cases do not occur, or even that we cannot know that they do occur (e.g. I am unable to "itemize" any of your publications, but am sure that you have published several, haven't you?)! Well, I could "itemize" my own valuable papers censored "to death", but 1) I of course consider my papers valuable (otherwise I would not write or publish them), but my own opinion in such case would probably not be very persuasive for you or other disputants; 2) I am in rather rare, special situation: having been "free-lance" as scientist for all my life, I could (and did!) afford to publish preferably in non-censored journals, or when such became rare or unaccessible I have created my own (see the attached Editor's note), therefore none of my papers remained unpublished forever - but unfortunately very few scientists are in such comfortable situation...

Your question is an important one. I dont feel confortable to give you a qualified answer for the moment. I recommend to you the reading of Freud on sexuality . Also, for example the first pages of " Dora Case" where Freud talk about the question of sexuality and doctors in a very elegant and even funny way.

I see that the discussion has effectively stopped, so let me formulate my own "summary": the support (I mean: free-willing acceptation, not - often unavoidable - forced accomodation!) for the system of obligatory pre-publication "peer"-review, where the opinion of the reviewer is considered - at least in prevalent practice - as decisive, is based on three strong "pillars":

1) Opportunism: addiction to current fashions, hypnotical attractiveness of such - even glaringly irrelevant and/or misapplied... - slogans as "modern", "rigorous", "high standard" &c.;

2) Inferiority complex: feeling that "others know better" and can significantly improve my paper (on which I was thinking and working for months or years, while for the reviewer it is but an incidental "excursion"); here again a "conclusive" slogan plays a role: "the author is not unerring" (and "peer"-reviewer is???). (Long ago, a renowned Polish novelist, Maria Rodziewiczówna, wrote to the publisher: „... powieść ... to nie szkolne wypracowanie na podany przez profesora temat, aby je oceniać i kreślić ...” ["a novel is not a school essay, on the theme given by the teacher, to be evaluated and corrected"] - should a scientific publication be treated as a schoolboy's [schoolgirl's] homework?).

3) Erratophobia: panicky fear of publishing a mistake (or even something what others could consider a mistake), acceptation [conscious or unconscious] of the principle that - to paraphrase a communist lawyers' adage - "it is better to reject hundred valuable papers than to publish one imperfect".

What I have noticed increasingly over the years, is the extinction of the sole author in so-called high impact journals. Recently I viewed a paper with so many authors on it (and their addresses) which took up over half the paper! The paper was not that important really, and did not add significantly to any aspect of biology. To me, it was yet another work by the so called elite to quash independent thought. It seems that there is safety in numbers when submitting to the so called high impact journals. If this is now occurring widespread, with so many authors now required on papers, it seems that something is drastically wrong with the system of refereeing of these journals. I would like to state that censorship is rife with these journals and is not in the best interest of furthering human knowledge and the betterment of the planet. And in addition, much of what they publish is totally wrong or later proven to be incorrect.

Kenneth, Trevor: If I understand you properly, I fully agree and can only once again quote Fred Hoyle: "Reviewing works before acceptance for publication is a method used by the élite to defend their positions", with an additional comment: "I had been growing up ... in the false belief that the elite desires real scientific progress, but this is usually exactly opposite of the real situation. ... minimal or but apparent progress does not allow to sort the wheat from the chaff and does not threaten the establishment, ... all funds may then be used for securing their own positions" - sorry for my clumsy retranslation from Polish!

But nevertheless many scientists not belonging to the "ruling elite" also devoutely defend the system...

• Kenneth: Publishing, by necessity, in high-IP journals scientists defend their position, I agree. But arguing in discussions that the system is OK, that it assures high-quality science, &c., ignoring (or even maliciously attacking - see e.g. the current slander-campaigne against Procrustomachia) non-"peer"reviewed publications, they obviously defend the system! As I wrote at the very beginning of this discussion: "I also understand that most scientists have no choice and must publish in "peer"-reviewed editions - I only do not understand why a scientist can consider it good?"

Publishing in or trying to publish in the highest so called high-impact journals adds much prestige to a scientist's CV and allows him better opportunities in the academic hierachy to "get ahead". However, it should be realised, that knowledge (i.e. research findings) is the same whether it be published in a high impact journal or a more "lowly" journal. Its just an "ego thing" for academics. Also I notice that many of these so called high impact journals fail to cite relevant research of their competitors, and do not allow debate or corrections, unless they are from their authors. Now we have massive multi authored papers appearing all over the place, which I think is getting out of hand. How can anybody assess the actual work undertaken in the paper of any particular single author, when so many authors are listed?. The ploy of placing large numbers of people these days on papers appear to me to be undertaken in order that paper's acceptance will occur despite any possible referee opposition and that it will not be rejected because "there is safety in numbers"! Many of these multi-authored works are designed to malign others.

Trevor: Multi-"coauthored" papers are usually simply an effect of "rat race", strive to have more and more positions on one's publication-list - the strategy is simple: I include ten colleagues as "co-authors" of my paper, each of them includes me as "co-author" of his/her publication, and so each of us, having actually written one paper, can claim the authorship of ten!

Yes unless authors can list at the end of the paper what they actually contributed to that paper, then this multi-authored ego-system should be stopped dead in its tracks, as its definitely not fair, definitely not ethical and should not be legal.

Kenneth: "Nobody likes censorship" - My experience (and even this discussion, and other "parallel" ones like "Are peer-reviewers' comments really useful?") shows that many scientists do indeed like the system of censorship, only do not like to admit this and so try to find some "loopholes" allowing to pretend they do not realize that "peer"-reviewing system is "by definition" a system of censorship!

"An unfair or biased review can help a manuscript get published just as easily as it can stop publication" - yes, of course: this is one of the factors making the system not only harmful but also ineffective! But anyway helping to publish is incomparably less destructive than the opposite! The system is wrong, better or worse reviewers, editors, &c. can only slightly modify the degree of the harm, but do not (and cannot) significantly reduce (let alone eliminate) it!

Kenneth: "I guess I have a different perspective on censorship and peer-review" - yes, certainly! First, the very necessity to negotiate with the editor is the perfect confirmation of the equality "obligatory reviewing = censorship" ("classical" - political - censors also sometimes allowed to pass some publications, the essence of censorship is that they can prevent publication! Second, I have heard of very few instances where the appeal to editor resulted in positive decision without the necessity to modify the text, and - as I wrote earlier - "a publication finally "accepted" on the price of introducing undesired (by the author) changes demanded by reviewers/editors, is already not the same paper (and moreover it is not really authored by the person who signed it)", so in such situation the original publication has been effectively rejected forever! Third, as Damien wrote "Delaying a publication by several months or years is already too much dammageable. It is a huge waste of time and energy. It is comparable to spending 90% of our working time to look for money to do our research instead of just doing it" and [this is already my "autocitation"] "the time and energy of not only the author but also reviewers and editor, in fact four or five scientists, instead of productive scientific work, spend weeks or months on "finding quarrel in a straw" from the one side and fruitless quarrels with editor, re- re- re-submitting the paper (to the same or different journals), introducing enforced but detrimental changes, &c. from the other...". I repeat: the system is profoundly wrong and detrimental, largely irrespective of the quality and good or bad will of particular reviewers or editors!

"Kenneth: Well, a well-known truth is that "the point ov view depends upon the point of sitting": "As a former Editor-in-chief of two international scientific journals in different disciplines, a referee for a large numbers journals, a judge for scientific journalism awards" you have evidently a quite different pespective than those like Roman Hołyński, who was the former or actual editor of three non-"peer"revieved jornals, never censored (or wished to censor) anybody, and for more than sixty years fought with editors and "peer"referees, "painstakingly trimming between the Scylla of hopeless beggary and Charybdis of 'a kind of academic prostitution, in which work is done to please editors and referees rather than to further knowledge”...

By the way, boldface was of course not intended to "decry" but simply to point clearly out what (in this case: the system, not particular persons) I consider "guilty".

Basically, the peer review system is a type of old boy network which can easily be corrupted and used against others. Its also therefore a "power thing". The fact that I have found so many errors and lack of refereeing of other people's work in so many "peer reviewed papers", indicates to me that the peer review system does not function properly despite it being made out by the controllers to be a great and fair system. There is therefore a need for the publication of review papers on any topic as most authors don't refer to others with whom they may be in fierce competition. This has been my experience and why I set up my own journals, Calodema, Spilopyra. Peer reviewed journals don't allow free speech. Peer-reviewed journals have authors under total control.