Re: What steps are taken to reduce cronyism in the peer-review process?
- From: "A.Carlson" <amcarls@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:49:58 -0700
On 10 Oct 2005 20:05:59 -0700, "Frank Sullivan"
<gimbal.locked@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I was just wondering, because I've heard over and over again that
>science is not a matter of a majority vote (see: NCSE's Project Steve)
>and I'm wondering how, in the end, a majority vote could be avoided.
>Suppose for a moment that scientists aren't the open-minded,
>inquisitive, logical beings that they generally are. Instead, pretend
>that they are the way that Creationists think of them: as stubborn,
>protective of their own hypothesis, leftist-bent, secular-bent,
>humanist-bent, anti-Christian, etc.
Check out the battles behind analysis of the works of Margaret Meade
for a little of this.
>In that sort of environment, would peer review even matter? I mean, if
>the editors are all snarling atheists, and the referees are all
>snarling atheists, then can the peer-review process be trusted?
Although biases are not limited to 'atheists', I would think that the
reputation of the journal itself would be at stake if any such alleged
biases were obvious.
>And suppose that the situation is not quite that extreme, but perhaps
>70% of scientists are snarling atheists and 30% are benevolent
>Creationists, and a Creationist submits a manuscript for review. Would
>it be posssible for the atheist editor to deliberately pass the paper
>out to like-minded referees and get the paper rejected?
But can 70% of scientists really be characterized as being 'snarling
atheists'?
I would actually argue that an atheist SHOULD be the one to review a
creationist's work just as I would argue that a creationist should be
the one to review an atheist's work just to keep the system honest and
help eliminate any personal biases of the originator from slipping
through. It shouldn't be done just to get the paper rejected though -
although an argument could be made that it is an editor's
responsibility to try and get any paper that crosses their desk
rejected, on relevant grounds of course.
My understanding is that the referee may be anonymous but not the
issues raised by the referee in reviewing the submitted paper. Is
that correct?
>And suppose that an atheist submits a paper for review, and it is
>published. Suppose then that a Creationist sees some glaring mistakes
>in the paper and writes a rebuttal. Then, suppose the rebuttal is
>reviewed by an editor and then passed on to other atheists for review,
>after which it is rejected.
The more obvious the cover up the more damage it could do to the
reputation of the publication.
>The situation you would have here would be a de facto democracy, with
>70% holding one opinion and, as a result, they are able to dominate and
>control the peer-review process.
Which could very easily come crashing down with one or two bad
examples displayed to the public.
>It seems that the only thing stopping this from becoming a democracy is
>the honesty of the editors and referees themselves, and I'm wondering
>if there are any measures put in place to help prevent cronyism in the
>peer-review process. Are the referees chosen at random?
Another question that should be asked is whether or not such apparent
disreputable behavior or lack of ethics would be reflected in the
quality of the journal.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- What steps are taken to reduce cronyism in the peer-review process?
- From: Frank Sullivan
- What steps are taken to reduce cronyism in the peer-review process?
- Prev by Date: Re: You know what I really love
- Next by Date: Re: What steps are taken to reduce cronyism in the peer-review process?
- Previous by thread: Re: What steps are taken to reduce cronyism in the peer-review process?
- Next by thread: Re: What steps are taken to reduce cronyism in the peer-review process?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
