On 12/06/09 12:42, 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.
> The repeatability is where the parapsychology falls down.

	But peer review doesn't demand repeatability. Well, OK - it should 
demand that the setup be described in a way that someone can repeat it, 
if that's what you mean.

	But I've seen no shortage experimental papers in good journals that 
simply don't give enough details for you to repeat it (e.g. key 
parameters are missing). I never measured it, but I suspect there's a 
positive correlation with such papers and the "fame" of their authors.

	The justification I've often been given is one of two: 1) The author 
doesn't want to give a way his secrets so that he can remain competitive 
in publishing papers (you may be shocked at how commonplace this is) 2) 
The author is thinking of starting a company and doesn't want to give 
trade secrets away.

	Essentially, peer review is only good if the peers are good and honest. 
I'm skeptical of that.

	Peer review can be a good first order filter, but let's not glorify. 
Enough junk routinely passes through. I suspect, though, that little of 
the junk survives over the long term, but I think enough "damage" is 
still done because of it.

PS - Also the case with computational papers, actually. Didn't mean to 
single out experimentalists.

-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright 
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little 
sign of breaking down in the near future.

Post a reply to this message