ISCID Forums
Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
my profile | search | faq | forum home

This topic has been moved to Brainstorms.    
next oldest topic   next newest topic
» ISCID Forums   » General   » The Archive   » Frank J. Tipler: Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?

   
Author Topic: Frank J. Tipler: Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1

Icon 1 posted 01. July 2003 07:02      Profile for Moderator   Email Moderator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?

by Frank J. Tipler

Abstract- The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a "peer" reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus's heliocentric system, Galileo's mechanics, Newton's grand synthesis -- these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors' friends. Even Darwin never submitted his idea of evolution driven by natural selection to a journal to be judged by "impartial" referees. Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin's friends. And Darwin's article was completely ignored. Instead, Darwin made his ideas known to his peers and to the world at large through a popular book: On the Origin of Species. I shall argue that prior to the Second World War the refereeing process, even where it existed, had very little effect on the publication of novel ideas, at least in the field of physics. But in the last several decades, many outstanding physicists have complained that their best ideas -- the very ideas that brought them fame -- were rejected by the refereed journals. Thus, prior to the Second World War, the refereeing process worked primarily to eliminate crackpot papers. Today, the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. I shall offer evidence that "peer" review is NOT peer review: the referee is quite often not as intellectually able as the author whose work he judges. We have pygmies standing in judgment on giants. I shall offer suggestions on ways to correct this problem, which, if continued, may seriously impede, if not stop, the advance of science.

To read the entire paper, click here.

To discuss the paper, click here.

[ 01. July 2003, 07:07: Message edited by: Moderator ]

IP: Logged


All times are East Coast  
Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    Top Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | ISCID

All content © ISCID and content contributor 2001-2003

The ISCID Forums are aimed at generating insight into the nature of complex systems (e.g. biological complexity, organizational complexity, etc.) and the ontological status of purpose, especially from the vantage point of various information- and design-theoretic models.

Indexed by UBB Spider Hack  |  Powered by Infopop Corporation UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.1

PCID | Encyclopedia | Brainstorms | The Archive | News | Essay Contests | Chat Events | Membership