tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post924016760045340389..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Peer Review IIISabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73870288800520942942008-02-26T13:03:00.000-05:002008-02-26T13:03:00.000-05:00Hmm. On further review of their website, I'm not ...Hmm. On further review of their website, I'm not 100% sure of my earlier comment that this is an advocacy group. Sorry for the comment-pollution.Michael Nielsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02551218831310219401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34373759579363266772008-02-26T12:58:00.000-05:002008-02-26T12:58:00.000-05:00Hi Bee,I was looking at the webpage of the organiz...Hi Bee,<BR/><BR/>I was looking at the webpage of the organization that published this report. It looks to me like it's a group whose main purpose is to lobby against open access. Since it's an advocacy group, I'm a bit suspicious of anything they publish.<BR/><BR/>With that said, the report you cite was commissioned from an independent research firm. So it is interesting.Michael Nielsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02551218831310219401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31876806618979842532008-02-05T14:45:00.000-05:002008-02-05T14:45:00.000-05:00Bee, I think that idea you put forth about a speci...Bee, I think that idea you put forth about a special board to look at amateur proposals is a good one. The only downside I can think of right ow is possible hardship for poor smart folks. However, most could likely scrape together enough to get something through if they cared a lot about it. There should be an effort to see what good can come out of that.<BR/><BR/>I think it is also important to Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65234199581507782242008-02-05T09:38:00.000-05:002008-02-05T09:38:00.000-05:00Hi Henry:Thanks for your interesting comment. I ce...Hi Henry:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your interesting comment. I certainly agree that we should reflect on what is going on. But to me the problem that you mention is not one that peer review could solve. What you are critizising is a much deeper ethical problem in the community (lacking criticism supports confirmation bias). What I have been focusing on in my posts are practical, easy to implement, Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80796929371607669792008-02-05T03:05:00.000-05:002008-02-05T03:05:00.000-05:00Dear Bee,I have read your posts about peer-review ...Dear Bee,<BR/><BR/>I have read your posts about peer-review in physics journals and I have found them really disappointing. I am a referee too and I have a good list of published papers too but I want to let you know what is really going on here with an example.<BR/><BR/>There is a community actively working to understand what form the gluon propagator should have in the infrared, i.e. they are Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61934937138574168612008-02-05T01:43:00.000-05:002008-02-05T01:43:00.000-05:00Well, having done and endured peer review myself, ...Well, having done and endured peer review myself, I'll make my comment short. I *strongly* disagree with the statement "peer review is unnecessary".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30716733524939528952008-02-04T20:36:00.000-05:002008-02-04T20:36:00.000-05:00speaking of it I just came across this : Microcano...speaking of it I just came across this : <BR/><BR/>Microcanonical treatment of black hole decay at the Large Hadron Collider<BR/>http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0647<BR/><BR/>I've re-read the reference list 5 times, but they fail to quote our paper on exactly the same topic, published 5 years earlier <BR/><BR/>Quasi Stable Black Holes at the Large Hadron Collider<BR/>http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0109085Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82273055256199418172008-02-04T14:01:00.000-05:002008-02-04T14:01:00.000-05:00Hi Kronprinz:Well, I don't see much point arguing ...Hi Kronprinz:<BR/><BR/>Well, I don't see much point arguing about which problem either of us considers the worst. Let me just add the reason why I find it of a certain concern that people send in papers without being aware of the previously published literature is that it indicates they are not able to find the information they need. As I have <A HREF="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/01/Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56672590413414272612008-02-03T22:50:00.000-05:002008-02-03T22:50:00.000-05:00"If I do a keyword search I usually pay more atten..."If I do a keyword search I usually pay more attention to the published papers (if older than 1 year or so), just because the quality is most often higher."<BR/><BR/>I used to do this, but I'm sorry to say that nowadays when I see a paper on the arxiv that has not been published, my instinct is automatic: "Poor bastard got a retard for an editor/referee." So I regret to say that for me, the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32984459079325902252008-02-03T20:40:00.000-05:002008-02-03T20:40:00.000-05:00Hi Phil, Hi Stefan:If somebody who financed an inv...Hi Phil, Hi Stefan:<BR/><BR/>If somebody who financed an investigation has certain specific interest this is a reason to be cautious, but not sufficient to conclude that the outcome of the investigation must necessarily be biased and to dismiss it. The objection that Phil had concerning the formulation of the question I agree on, it would be doubtful if this was the only question. But as I've Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75577653867161728022008-02-03T16:26:00.000-05:002008-02-03T16:26:00.000-05:00Hi Bee,I dont have the bias you imagine. I have no...Hi Bee,<BR/><BR/>I dont have the bias you imagine. I have not been connected to any academic institution for over twenty years and have no reason to want to get rid of journals or peer review. In fact I published a paper in a peer reviewed journal last year and since I cannot submit to the arxiv that makes journals the only means for me to publish beyond my own blog.<BR/><BR/>I am simply pointingPeteHHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08545699636937390967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52494205888989452692008-02-03T16:25:00.000-05:002008-02-03T16:25:00.000-05:00Dear Bee,ah, that's a nice coincidence - I didn't ...Dear Bee,<BR/><BR/>ah, that's a nice coincidence - I didn't know that you had participated in this survey :-)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Hi phil,<BR/><BR/>when I noticed the press release about the survey, I first was a bit sceptical first, for reasons similar to yours. <BR/><BR/>However, among the publishers of the "Publishing Research Consortium Partners" who commissionend the survey, there are also stefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-68299948265630493602008-02-03T16:16:00.000-05:002008-02-03T16:16:00.000-05:00What kind of peer review or the operational equiva...What kind of peer review or the operational equivalent, and where, can gifted amateurs or independent scholars get?Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32502379499772896002008-02-03T15:56:00.000-05:002008-02-03T15:56:00.000-05:00Hi Phil:I think that this survey is a response to ...Hi Phil:<BR/><BR/><I>I think that this survey is a response to that, but since it was commissioned by the journals themselves and not the accademics, it is obvious whose side it is going to be supporting. You dont have to read far to see those biases coming through.</I><BR/><BR/>I too think that this survey is a response to that, and I don't have to read your comments far to see your biases Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81834449385904176742008-02-03T14:52:00.000-05:002008-02-03T14:52:00.000-05:00Hi Bee,Yes I did have a look at the survey. The qu...Hi Bee,<BR/>Yes I did have a look at the survey. The question about peer review being unnecessary is the first result mentioned in the executive summary which is why I called it the headline result.<BR/><BR/>I am sure you must be aware that the journals have been under some pressure from some accademics recently. If you aren't aware then just look at www.eurekajournalwatch.org<BR/><BR/>I think PeteHHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08545699636937390967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70967933885768742642008-02-03T11:19:00.000-05:002008-02-03T11:19:00.000-05:00Hi Phil:“The overwhelming majority (93%) disagree ...Hi Phil:<BR/><BR/><I>“The overwhelming majority (93%) disagree that peer review is unnecessary”<BR/><BR/>I am certainly happy that this would be the case and yet not surprised since this is a way to determine if ones vocation is truly professional or not. I would suspect the 5% would encompass mainly part of the small crack-pot element that will be found in any profession.</I><BR/><BR/>No, I Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49018693264031011502008-02-03T10:59:00.000-05:002008-02-03T10:59:00.000-05:00Hi Kronprinz:What! 32% think that the current syst...Hi Kronprinz:<BR/><BR/><I>What! 32% think that the current system cannot be improved?! Are they kidding? What utter crap.</I><BR/><BR/>Though I am among those who definitely think the system can be improved (well, I'd say there is always room for improvement, the question is only if it's worth the effort) it seems to fit with the impression I get from talking to my colleagues. It's about the sameSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34705992721223862722008-02-03T10:40:00.000-05:002008-02-03T10:40:00.000-05:00Hi Phil:The survey is worthless because it was con...Hi Phil:<BR/><BR/><I>The survey is worthless because it was conducted by the journal publishers themselves. The questions and areas of study were biased to get the result they wanted. <BR/><BR/>Just look at the headline question which was "Do you agree or disagree with the statement that peer review is completely unnecessary?" Notice the use of the negative and the word "completely" which is [...Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87098515006107944832008-02-03T04:42:00.000-05:002008-02-03T04:42:00.000-05:00The survey is worthless because it was conducted b...The survey is worthless because it was conducted by the journal publishers themselves. The questions and areas of study were biased to get the result they wanted. <BR/><BR/>Just look at the headline question which was "Do you agree or disagree with the statement that peer review is completely unnecessary?" Notice the use of the negative and the word "completely" which is left out when the result PeteHHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08545699636937390967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77919995376159929832008-02-03T01:53:00.000-05:002008-02-03T01:53:00.000-05:00"were divided on whether the current system is the..."were divided on whether the current system is the best that can be achieved, with 36% disagreeing and 32% agreeing"<BR/><BR/>What! 32% think that the current system cannot be improved?! Are they kidding? What utter crap.<BR/><BR/>*The* worst aspect of the present system is that, in effect, there is no appeal. Sure, you can complain to the editor --- good luck.... I had a paper rejected by an *Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-50013813312475433282008-02-02T20:05:00.000-05:002008-02-02T20:05:00.000-05:00Hi Bee,“The overwhelming majority (93%) disagree t...Hi Bee,<BR/><BR/>“The overwhelming majority (93%) disagree that peer review is unnecessary”<BR/><BR/>I am certainly happy that this would be the case and yet not surprised since this is a way to determine if ones vocation is truly professional or not. I would suspect the 5% would encompass mainly part of the small crack-pot element that will be found in any profession. It would be interesting Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com