A fascinating article charging - and making stick - the journal referee system of preserving orthodoxy and mediocrity at the expense of innovation. The first part of this paper is a must-read. Sadly, the rest falls flat. The author, after making such a convincing case by showing that Nobel laureates have had trouble getting their work published, asserts that the major victims of such orthodoxy is faith-based physics. I honestly don't think that's the problem here - showing that "2+2=4" is one thing, showing that "2+2=4 because only God could have made it so, and hence, God exists", doesn't really advance our knowledge. Not that I want to bar such research from being published; quite the contrary, I think wider publication and discussion of such reasoning would be useful. But the third part of the paper produces no joy either. The author suggests, first, that a cadre of eminent scientists replace the less than able reviewers, which creates a friend-of-a-friend network, and that scientific funding be managed by state governments, which puts politicians in control. But if there's any group of people I trust less than professors and researchers (and there are, in fact, many), it's politicians. The obvious answer, of course - and this is touched on by the author - is to let *everybody* publish (on the net of course), let authors be evaluated by readers, and let tenure (and grants) be determined by demonstrated importance of the work.
Today: 1 Total: 96 [Direct link] [Share]
