While I agree that this could degenerate into a "discussion of anecdotes" there is more to it than that. The last paragraph of my posting stated that "Peer review is most useful for research that requires careful attention to standard protocols." and I think that we could legitimately ask whether all submissions need the same kind of peer review. In physics, for example, some of the top journals will accept experimental papers on high-energy physics without review, presumably because an experiment carried out by 30 or 40 scientists at a cost of millions of dollars should be exposed to public view without needing the approval of two or three referees. I suggested that the same reasoning might apply to some deep-sea observations. I am also unhappy at the custom of taking a very large-scale experiment which is published in sections (one on phytopankton, one on zooplankton, one on demersal fish, etc.) and reviewing the parts independently so that some pieces of the work may not be available.
As for asking the editors to lead the discussion, I am suspicious of their objectivity -- many feel threatened by the increased options for self-publication and are responding in ways that I feel do not benefit the science community. For example, if there are 100 publishable papers at a conference but a journal has agreed to publish only 50, the editors seem perfectly complacent about discarding the other 50. I consider this outrageous, and feel that the science should take precedence over the economics of publishing. There are ways in which this can now be done. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Tufford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). >I will not get involved in a resumption of the peer review wars, but I will > make one point. Those of us involved in the peer review process all have > horror stories (I am in the middle of one right now). But if you are > suggesting we get rid of peer review and rely on editors I would like the > editors to participate in, perhaps lead, that decision. > > There is much more I could say but I really, really do not want to > participate in a discussion of anecdotes. > > Regards, > Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. > University of South Carolina > Department of Biological Sciences > 209A Sumwalt (office) > 701 Sumter St, Room 401 (mail) > Columbia, SC 29208 > Ph. 803-777-3292, Fx: 803-777-3292 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research > (IJCR). > > 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. > >
