On 6-12-2009 19:42, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>     Having engaged in the peer review process, I don't have too strong 
>> belief in its effectiveness. I haven't really thought of an 
>> alternative, though.
> 
> I think it's effective for ruling out the obviously-flawed experiments. 
> Combine that with the requirement for repeatability and you get science. 
> 

In my experience that is not always the case. When an important figure 
has a theory that sounds plausible he may get addicted to the grants he 
gets to expand that theory. Data that would show that the theory is 
wrong will be extremely difficult to get published because he and his 
followers will hold key positions in the peer review process. (Sorry for 
the him, in my field I haven't seen it with women. In a neighbouring 
field possibly)

Post a reply to this message