Re: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- From: "tadchem" <tadchem@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Apr 2006 17:06:53 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
Dumb question time. Standard (more or less) procedure for scientific
advancement:
[1] Propose a theory.
[2] Propose an experiment to test the theory.
[3] Do the experiment.
[4] Write it up in a draft paper.
[5] Submit the paper to a peer-reviewed journal.
One can also submit papers on pure theories. It is advisable to be
clear and thorough on these, showing where and how the proposed theory
differes from any existing theories in terms of measurable
consequences, and to at least outline an experiment that could decide
which is more accurate. Of course, theories are stronger if they have
a mathematical exposition that can be expressed in terms of physically
observable quantities and are dimensionally self-consistent. These are
almost necessary for publication quality papers in peer-reviewed
journals.
How does one determine the "peers"? Is there a standardized and/or known
list of such journals somewhere? It would appear there's a fair number,
from Nature to JAMA to ACM, and ACM may or may not be scientific (as it's
primarily concerned with computer algorithms, which are generally
man-made -- though there's been some work in evolutionary program-writing).
The 'peers' who review the paper are generally selected by the journal
and are not known to the author, although IRL the author(s) may be
familiar with the names and publications of those who are in the short
list of reviewers. The author will not know which of these 'experts'
have been chosen to review his paper.
It is also clear that things such as "cold fusion" violated part of the
process by throwing things out to the lay press which can't tell a proton
from a clavicord.
....doing permanent damage to the scientific credibility of Pons and
Fleischmann.
(I have actually seen an ABC News release claim -- but
I can't find it now, of course -- that a magnetic field has a negative
charge. This is probably because of sloppy editing but one would hope the
news organs at least know the basics.)
I have a 'peer' who claims that in *every* case in which he has a
priori knowledge of some event/circumstance that was later judged
worthy of publication in the popular press, the press has mis-reported
important particulars. This includes events from a fatal airplane
crash on a college campus to a capital murder trial.
His conclusion: "If it appears in the popular press, there is probably
something interesting there, but you will have to research it
independently to find out what is really going on."
And of course one can define peers as being one's fellow surfers, web,
water, or otherwise. This probably won't work for highly math-laced
results, though (though given any blog, there's a small probability
someone might actually read and respond intelligently to any papers
published thereon).
The definition of 'peer' is highly context-dependent except in the UK,
when 'peer' refers to bearers of hereditary titles of nobility.
Not that I have anything, mind you; I'm just curious. :-) Besides, my
Impossible Ultimate Engine got slapped down here *very* quickly... :-)
There is a lot to be said in favor of rapid feedback as a means to
prevent waste of time in
erroneous efforts.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- From: LawsonE
- Re: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- References:
- What is a "peer" for peer review?
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- What is a "peer" for peer review?
- Prev by Date: Re: Proof that photons are not massless!
- Next by Date: Re: Apollo's Laser Reflecting 'Corner Cubes'
- Previous by thread: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- Next by thread: Re: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
