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: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> 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not peer-reviewed, junk science, 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.
