--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > [snip] > The peer review process is not an indicator of good > science. It's also not any sort of guarantee--so > you're basing your statement on something false.
Finally - now here's a sentiment I can agree with Vaj! There's definitely something fishy with this idea of peer- review. To me it smacks of priesthood, social control, vested interests, editorial monopoly and the politicization of Science. The process of peer review has itself come under review - empirical study - and has been found wanting. There is going to be a conference on it in July: http://www.iiis2009.org/wmsci/Website/default.asp?vc=27 INVITATION TO A SYMPOSIUM ON PEER REVIEW ------------------------------------------- Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that "peer review works well as it is." (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192). "A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research." (Horrobin, 2001). Horrobin concludes that peer review "is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance." (Horrobin, 2001). This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing number of journal editors. Since a growing number of studies conclude that peer review is flawed and ineffective as it is being implemented, why not apply scientific and engineering research and methods to the peer review process? This is the purpose of the International Symposium on Peer Reviewing: ISPR (http://www.ICTconfer.org/ispr) being organized in the context of The 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Generation, Communication and Management: KGCM 2009 (http://www.ICTconfer.org/kgcm), which will be held on July 10- 13, 2009, in Orlando, Florida, USA.
