I have published two dozen papers in fairly prestigious journals and reviewed many more. I have also read (when I am allowed to) the reviews of papers that were not mine. This has made me somewhat cynical about the modern system of journal peer review.
The journal peer review system is not at the heart of science. Peer review is at the heart of science, but it is better done by _everybody_ than by two or three anonymous reviewers who often have either 1) a vested interest favoring the paper or 2) a vested interest against. It is also often the case that reviewers are hurried, sloppy and marginally qualified to decide the fate of the papers they read. Galileo, Newton, Humboldt and Darwin did not go through our journal peer review system. Instead they had to face everybody openly and so did their critics. If The Origin of Species had been peer-reviewed anonymously, it would probably never have been published ... unless Darwin had a friend for an editor. To a considerable extent, that is how publishing papers occurs then and today. Editing and reviewing (when done well) is hard work, and I thank those who do it, but I do not thank Springer, Elsevier and other publishing houses for 1) limiting my access and my students' access to information, 2) filtering science through three people before thousands of interested scientists get to see it (if they ever do), 3) adding one to two years to the publication process, and 4) charging me for these "features". Scientific societies would do science a great service by moving as much as possible towards openly published, openly criticized internet publications. These could be wikipedia-like except 1) each article would still be clearly authored, dated and permanent, 2) criticisms and emendations would likewise be clearly authored, dated and permanent. I recognize that efforts such as these are already happening. I hope they can become standard, systematic and well-embraced even by those who presently benefit from limiting information flow. It is often argued that without editors and reviewers, we poor scientists would be unable to tell the junk from the science. Is this a serious argument? Are we this bad at our jobs? Most of the published literature is already redundant, sloppy and unreadable. Yet we figure it out. We learn (with the help of teachers, colleagues and other authors) who is worth reading. I have faith that our big brains, nimble fingers and long legs can get us through the deep, obscure forests of the scientific literature ... _without_ invisible, anonymous guides and big publishing house tour buses. Patrick Foley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
