Guest essay by Abzats.
The most exciting period in science was, arguably, 1895-1945. It was marked by discoveries that changed the foundations of modern science: X-rays, quantum mechanics, superconductivity, relativity theory and nuclear energy. Then, compare this with the next 50 years in science. Incomparable. Nothing of that scale or impact. Yes, technology has advanced, but fundamental science – has come to a crawl. Have you ever wondered why? What changed as the 20th century grew older? Among other things, research budgets and the number of PhDs increased exponentially. This cannot be bad.
Well, it can. All depends on the rules of the game. And they have changed. The change went largely unnoticed by the general public. In this article I will try to bring everyone up to speed. I will explain to non-scientists the “business model” of modern science. People may want to know. After all, scientists are burning public money, billions a year. And, I am quite sure, those who get my message will react with “you cannot be serious!” And leaders of organized crime will be pulling their hair out in despair: “why did not we think of this first?”
Single most important element of the modern science machinery is the peer review process. It was introduced a long time ago, but it took over the scientific community at about mid 20th century. Why is it important? Every scientist must publish his or her work. If you do not publish, you will not advance your career. This works the same way as it does, say, for a businessman – if you cannot close a single deal, you are finished. Most journals have adopted peer review policies. Peer review process is also standard for research grants competitions. It is also the foundation of the tenure and promotion process at universities.
Well then, what is it exactly? To save time, let me explain peer review of papers submitted for publication in scientific journals. Once a journal receives a manuscript the journal sends it to 2-3 reviewers, who are experts in the field. Each reviewer writes a report that includes a recommendation on whether or not the manuscript should be published and advice to the author on how the manuscript can be improved. So far so good. Nothing seems wrong. This should work wonderfully. Well, in theory only. In reality it does not. In reality it is more of a disaster.
Let me explain. All the reviewers are anonymous. That is, they know your name but you do not know theirs. This is the first red flag: unless you plan to do something really bad, why do you insists being anonymous? The second red flag is that none of them gets paid. Those who believe in Santa Claus will say, well, they are just nice people volunteering their time to help advance science. Those who work for a living will smell a rat. I can give you one reason: being a reviewer gives you power over other people. Some just enjoy it, others use it to advance their own agenda. Such as approve manuscripts that praise reviewer’s own research and reject those that criticize it.
The power reviewers have is enormous. Put yourself in author’s shoes. You worked hard for six months on a manuscript. Your work is brilliant, if you publish it, not only will you advance your career, it will make you a leader in the field. Then, the manuscript goes to a reviewer who just happens to be having a bad day. He browses through the manuscript for 20-30 minutes, does not like the name of the author (never heard of him, “wrong” ethnicity, or … whatever), and rejects the paper. Can you appeal? No. You can write an angry letter, but you cannot call your attorney. Because nobody is breaking the law. because there isn’t any.
They can ruin your career and drive research, often funded by the public, to a dead end, and they are not accountable to anyone. In such a system, for most scientists the best, or should I say the only, way to advance their careers is by kissing up to those in higher positions: in person, in manuscripts, and in the whole research strategy. This has been going on for decades. As a result of this “natural selection”, the scientific community has been consumed by cronyism. Parts of it are rotten to the core.
Let me give you one example. Last year I attended a Radiation Research Society meeting. It was held in Maui, Hawaii. Why? Obviously it is a great spot for a vacation. You will not find any major research centers in the neighborhood. If you are still thinking of defending this choice, get this – the conference was held at the Grand Wailea Resort. The thing about this place is that luxury here is obscene. It is a kind of place a bum would go to after winning a lottery. And, guess what, I believe I have seen a few. Never before had I seen an invited speaker at a major conference making bodily function jokes. Here I had seen more than one, including a recipient of a lifetime achievement award spelling a word for body waste and thinking it was funny. Do not get me wrong, I am not judging here. But, if he jokes at a preschooler level, would you trust him to be a reviewer of your work? Do I need to mention who paid for the event? Or, that it took place during the worst economic crisis in decades?
A couple of other problems. Reviewers have no real motivation to work fast. Here is what you would see when checking status of your manuscript on a journal’s web site: manuscript to referee, unable to report – sent to another referee, and so on, several times, for weeks and months. Nonsense. With all the technology available, a manuscript can be published within hours. But, no, it has to sit for weeks on somebody’s desk. Somebody who just does not care enough. Or, worse, someone who is interested in delaying the process. The reviewer may be working on exactly the same problem and wants his paper published first.
Another problem that extremely frustrates me as an author are suggestions reviewers make on how I should improve my manuscript. Originally, may be, it was a good idea – your peers offering you advice that will help you improve your work. But it all has gone very wrong. These days these are not suggestions or advice – these are demands. You change your manuscript exactly as you are told, or it will be rejected. I am a well established scientist, why do I have to take advice from someone who would not even reveal his identity or credentials? And, finally, this system is perfect for stealing ideas. After you submit your manuscript you have no control of who will access it. All you can hope for is human decency, and it is not always there.
This brings us to the root of the problem. People, including scientists, are flawed. Few will miss a chance to stab competition in the back and abuse whatever little power they may have. I am not the first to criticize the peer review process. But I am not. Criticizing implies it can be fixed. It cannot. It was a bad idea all along. Then, what can be done? There is no quick and easy solution.
But I know where to start – ban peer review. And I know this can be done, this nonsense can be dealt with. This is not brain surgery, this is all about leveling the playing field, making rules for fair and open competition. These problems have been solved in all other spheres. Only scientists for whatever bizarre reasons received a special treatment and the right to live in lawlessness. Which is so wrong, I cannot find words to describe. Science is one most important sphere of human activity.
Who will find cure from cancer? Who will prevent the planet from becoming uninhabitable? Scientists. Not those from the beaches of Grand Wailea. Real ones. I hope we can still find some and reverse, before it’s too late, the depletion of brains. Let’s get started. Ban peer review!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As someone who has been peer-reviewed, and does peer review, a simple change seems sufficient to me – be open about who the reviewer is, if their comments are taken into account (my first paper was apparently reviewed by three people, but only one’s comments were relayed to me – I have later learnt that the then editor who I was dealing with had a healthy habit of taking recommendations to publish with minor changes which he saw as non-substantive as simply saying publish, especially for papers by early-career researchers). If you say publish, fine, you can do this anonymously, but if you want to change something or reject, you should at least say who you are.
I have had one rejection (probably fair enough) anonymously, and I have therefore no idea if I got something wrong (probable) or simply offended someone. But I have had rejections where reviewers have been courteous enough to discuss the paper with me afterwards with the aim of producing something from the good bits (I am not giving the impression of competence here am I?). And although I have never recommended rejection, if I do recommend changes it is with full permission to contact me for more details.
I think anonymity allows a small number of experts to cast their judgements, which is never healthy. If review was undertaken on conditiion that you had to explain your problems and at least have a name against them, this would get round that problem – either the experts would be obviously seen to be gate-keeping, or they would refuse to review so much and the pool would be wider. A simple change, but one which gets round many of the problems of the system – it leads to the simple question “why am I objecting to this, and would I want my name publically associated with that objection?”.
“They can ruin your career and drive research, often funded by the public, to a dead end, and they are not accountable to anyone. In such a system, for most scientists the best, or should I say the only, way to advance their careers is by kissing up to those in higher positions: in person, in manuscripts, and in the whole research strategy. This has been going on for decades. As a result of this “natural selection”, the scientific community has been consumed by cronyism. Parts of it are rotten to the core.”
For those outside of this process, it still has abundant application to our own lives. Notice the article acknowledges that “technology has advanced,” but not “fundamental science.” However, that is about to change if the dynamics of “gate-keeping” through anonymous peer review are applied to all innovations in technology, energy, and agriculture. This is what the Precautionary Principle espouses. It is the principle that all technology must pass through an approval process and that if it is determined that it may have some harmful effect on the environment, it must be prevented from being developed. So rather than eliminating the unaccountability inherent in peer review, the heartless globalists and environmentalists are working to extend this process to technological innovations.
If you step back from the picture just a few feet farther, I think the case can be made that the process of strict enforcement of current theories in science begins with the hiring practices of most academic institutions. The Universities are quite insular, and progressives do not often hire conservatives; they are also less likely to get tenure. This is well-documented. Just look objectively at academia and Hollywood. So there is not a lot of promise in the alternative science movements either. These are showing clear patterns of being completely co-opted by heartless environmental and world empire (UN) activists.
“All the reviewers are anonymous. That is, they know your name but you do not know theirs. This is the first red flag: unless you plan to do something really bad, why do you insists being anonymous? ”
… wrote the essayist and published under a pseudonym. So much for his/her credibility.
The credibility of a paper is built on science and the logic, reason and intuition of science people – this does not need protecting as those afraid of junk science proliferation are saying – I’m sure that a wide open forum and review would stimulate new thinking, intuition, creativity. If something is not worthy, it will fall by the wayside in a natural way, inherent in the fundamental science process. If people eroneously pick something up and run with it, they will help prove one way or the other. History of science it littered with wrong turns leading to amazing discovery.
Suspicion must arise when certain entities insist on the need for control and controlling the field. We now have new tools to spread the word and young open minds disgusted with the secrecy, manipulation, corruption and profit mentality of todays fake ‘democracy’ systems. There is incredible science out there, already known that has not seen the light of day because of secrecy and whathaveyou. The knowledge belongs to all, all have paid for it. We stand on the shoulders of giants, let us not forget that – I’m sure many of them are looking down, appalled at the disgraceful behaviour and severely compromised morality of (many) so called men of science, the theft of light and the fruits of the mind from the masses who have more recently enabled such investigation, discovery and progress. Our planet is a mess because the technology and science to ‘save’ us has been stolen, theft of the most evil kind. Wake up people and do something about it. A commenter above quoted a list of recent accomplishments, e.g. the mars landers, lhc, etc. If only he could see where we would have been if the science process had been respected and honoured by all, without greed, ego or alterior motive. He could have been writing (other) commentary from Mars itself.
NJ
While I have not reviewed all comments, the elimination of anonymous review is not an answer. That suggestion ignores the power relations that exist in science. It is true, however, that anonymity often leads to irresponsible behavior. With internet technology, we can have the protection of anonymity while preserving responsible behavior.
Extended abstract (5 min. read):
Stodolsky, D. S. (2002). Computer-network based democracy: Scientific communication as a basis for governance. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Knowledge Management in e-Government, 7, 127-137.
http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$14
Comprehensive
Stodolsky, D. S. (1995). Consensus Journals: Invitational journals based upon peer review. The Information Society, 11(4). [1994 version in N. P. Gleditsch, P. H. Enckell, & J. Burchardt (Eds.), Det videnskabelige tidsskrift (The scientific journal) (pp. 151-160). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. (Tema NORD 1994: 574)]
http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$19
Again Re Peer-Reviewed Science
– The House Committee on Un-American Activities functioned to investigate disloyalty and subversive organizations.
– The Inquisition was a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy.
– Big Brother is George Orwell’s dictator of Oceania.
– Hope for peer-reviewed science?
http://universe-life.com/2011/01/25/hope-for-2011-science/
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
-The Genome is a base organism evolved, and continuously modified, by the genes of its higher organism as their functional template.
-The 20yrs development, and comprehensive data-based scientism worldview, in a succinct format.