I would not presume to talk about the value of peer review for all of science,
but for some fields it is absolutely essential. I am a archaeologist, and we
desperately need peer review to weed out papers by two groups of authors (many
of whom can write scholarly-sounding and scholarly-looking papers). First we
lunatics who would like to think they are part of the scholarly discipline. They
are into Maya prophesies for 2012, boatloads of Egyptians who (supposedly)
showed the Incas how to mummify the dead, phony pyramids in the Balkans, Â and
the like. Some of these people write books and articles that appear to be
scholarly, but are not. The second group is more insidious. These are scholars
with valid degrees who have a very non-scientific epistemology, producing
stories of the past with little plausibility. Taking a more humanities-oriented
approach, they are willing to propose interpretations that the more
scientifically-minded of us consider baseless speculation.
Â
High-energy physics presumably has fewer lunatics and hangers-on than
archaeology, and they are probably easier to spot. We desperately need peer
review to keep some sort of sanity in our field.
Â
Mike
Â
Michael E. Smith, Professor
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University
www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
