Bill is right in that peer-reviewed does not always equal a paper with good science. I would hope that none of us would be so naive as to assume that peer-review is perfect, just as I would hope that we understand that not all editors can walk on water and raise the dead. The hope, at least in my understanding, is that the more scientists that read a paper, the greater the chance that errors in method or logic will be caught before publication.
Given our busy lives, no doubt many of us that have served as reviewers have put less than our best efforts into some reviews. And, no doubt our individual biases, ignorance and/or wrong-headedness have kept us from spotting an error here and there. But, I would argue that peer-review is still the best shot we have on average to increase the "good science" content of our journals. Tom Martin William Silvert wrote: > I think this is a case of scientists falling into a pit they dug > themselves. Since I was a physicist before turning to ecology I am > always puzzled by the mystique that peer review seems to have > acquired. Not all physics papers are peer reviewed, and I know at > least one paper that wasn't which earned its author a Nobel prize. I > have seen little evidence that peer review is any better than having a > good editor. Some really awful papers show up in peer reviewed > journals. The idea that because a paper has passed peer review it is > good science just doesn't go down well with me. > > Peer review is most useful for research that requires careful > attention to standard protocols. A reviewer of a paper in a field like > microbiology should be able to certify that samples were properly > sterilised, that the staining was done correctly, and so on. But > consider the paper which first reported the existence of abyssal > communities based on chemosynthesis, certainly one of the most > important ecological discoveries of the past century -- what could a > "peer" reviewer possibly have to say about that? > > Bill Silvert > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Tufford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 7:37 PM > Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal > of Creation Research (IJCR). > > >> I think there is a legitimate concern about a journal presenting >> itself as >> scientific and peer-reviewed, regardless of whether the typical news >> junkie >> will ever read it. Many people, our current President among them, may >> hear >> in the wind about a peer-reviewed article that "proves" a biblical >> statement >> and believe it is real science because it is "peer-reviewed." Think >> about >> things we say about outrageous claims...not peer-reviewed, junk science, >> etc. The publishers are attempting to take that away from us. So now >> we will >> have distinguish between credible peer-reviewed and everything else. >> That >> level of nuance will be lost on, or ignored by, many people. >
