Talk:Peer review/Archive 1

Plautus satire's irresponsible comments are those of a crackpot.

Plautus satire's comments are idiotic nonsense. I have refereed papers for five mathematics journals, and my published papers have been refereed (and some unpublished ones that I submitted). Obviously history is consulted; obviously proof-checking is not the main point of refereeing; obviously novel ideas are examined in the context of accepted notions. To say that mathematics is not a science but a "language" ignores the fact that hundreds of journals are devoted to publishing new discoveries in mathematics. Obviously in judging publication-worthiness one considers how new discoveries may be relevant to potential future research; one considers esthetics (which for most mathematicians is the main motive for doing mathematics or for learning mathematics). Whence this loony idea that there is no need to consult history? Do you not see sections on how a new discovery fits into the historical development of the subject in many research papers in mathematics?

Plautus satire's comments are those of a crackpot. Michael Hardy 22:02, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The strength of peer review is at the very heart of Wikipedia's philosophy.

This is quite new to me that Wikipedia uses something even similar to "peer

review". I always thought that "peer review" is at the very heart of Nupedia fiasco and Wikipedia is better off without it.
Kpjas 12:40 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The newly-added section on Patrick Michaels needs work. The connection isn't obvious between the 1996 controversy about the global warming article and the topic of peer review. If the connection is simply that this is an example where peer review failed to prevent a 'bad' article getting published, I'd argue that in that case we don't need very so much detail about the case itself. (The detail probably belongs elsewhere, perhaps somewhere in global warming.)
Toby W 15:24, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 23:18, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)) Indeed. Michaels is massively POV on global warming, and without extra detail - the name of the paper as a bare minimum - can't be trusted to report accurately.

(William M. Connolley 22:31, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)) OK, I've removed the Michaels bit entirely. Why? Well (ignoring the low quality of the info: paper not even identified, for example), first I snipped it down to the essentials plus a link. Then I thought, OK, but if its there I should add the Soon+Baliunas case too. And then I thought: but we don't want to have the global warming wars spill over into this page by proxy. If it beongs anywhere, it belongs in GW controversy, probably.

NPOV of Peer Review Entry

I would like to challenge the neutrality of the peer review entry, particularly with regards to the following passage:

"Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites."

There are a great many who challenge the wisdom of peer review, as evidenced by the 2003 report by Tom Jefferson et al which cites the utter lack of empirical evidence that peer review contributes to the quality of published papers. Also cited as criticism of adversarial peer review (in lieu of collaboration) is the destructive nature of scientists competing for funding, which is a clear motive for fraud and abuse in any context. - Plautus satire 04:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note that a common policy in some domains is to find experts that are remote from the authors. With the Internet, it's just a matter of a few clicks to send a paper for refereeing in another country (where people usually do not compete for the same funding). Furthermore, there's a ethical requirement for referees to declare possible conflicts of interest to the editors.

Of course, all is not rosy and all, but this should also be taken into account. David.Monniaux 19:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) This doesn't sound like a NPOV challenge, more an incomplete information problem. If you can find, and quote from, the TJ report, why not add it? I don't quite see the problem with funding though: this doesn't seem to have much to do with peer-review of papers for publication.

What I object to is the wording "some sociologists of science". This should be changed to reflect the more general nature of the criticisms of peer review, which do not all come from sociologists, or else criticisms like this should not be here at all. If criticisms are in the body of the entry, they should be above reproach. - Plautus satire 14:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let me just note I don't want more "clutter" (or whatever) added to this entry, I just want that reference to a very specific, tiny group ("sociologists of science" whatever that means) to be changed to something less startlingly tiny and strange. - Plautus satire 14:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) "Some X..." is weaselly anyway. It would be far better replaced by specific people who have said it. If they then turn out to be people other than a few sociologists, then we'll know what to change the text to say. But if you are hoping to find some srt of academic study on the benefits or otherwise or peer review, you're likely to find it authored by sociologists, I would have though.

Well, the only reason I am reluctant to add specific "pro" or "con" references is because I have been chased out of other entries by adding "con" where there was only "pro" or "weak or approximate con" for NPOV. By "weak or approximate con" I mean a situation is set up where there is both "pro" and "con," but the "con" side is sprinkled liberally with insulting language while the "pro" side is virtually beatified. - Plautus satire 15:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) Probably the best thing to do is to try out some of the refs you're thinking of adding, by putting them on this page first. Then we can see if they seem reasonably balanced.

Thanks for the suggestion for ways to proceed on this, I will look the piece over once again and give it my critical analysis briefly here with proposed changes. - Plautus satire 17:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Extraneous Link to Requests for Comment on Plautus Satire

Please be aware who you are dealing with: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire

Curps 17:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) Indeed. However, there is nothing particularly unreasonable here.

Yet. Curps

Minor fact correction. This attempt by Curps to derail a peaceful attempt at collaboration seems to me to be a bit unreasonable. - Plautus satire 18:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)