Have any "skeptics" who complain about peer review ever participated in the process?
I'm just curious?
It seems so many people have an opinion on it yet, I'd like to know how many of those who have opinions have formed said opinions through direct involvement in the system instead of reading the opinions of others (who probably also haven't participated in the system)?
2012-10-19T08:28:37Z
"We are the knights who say nee.....ds major revisions"
Peter J, you couldn't be more wrong. I signed up to be a reviewer on the 5th IPCC report. There was no vetting (yet) of my credentials. Perhaps you should lend you expertise as well.
Anyways, so far it seems the answer is no, but they maintain knowledge of the system. By this metric I am an expert in economics, right wing politics, the bible, etc etc. What a load of crap.
2012-10-19T09:45:33Z
Mike - scientific peer review requires experts to review, that's what scientists are and that's the knowledge base needed to disseminate the work adequately.
I registered for Chapter 6 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles as my most recent work has direct implications in global hydrology and biosphere/atmosphere interactions.
I will not list my citations on this forum, I'd prefer a modicum of anonymity from the "skeptics."
pegminer2012-10-19T15:36:49Z
Favorite Answer
Well, I believe in AGW but consider myself to be a very skeptical person, so I'll answer the question.
I have one paper in peer review right now, and another one that made it through last month (Journal of Climate). Those people that offer the opinion that it's just a good old boy network where I'll pass your paper if you pass mine, clearly have no experience at all with the process. If you look at the rejection rates for papers in atmospheric science journals, the mode is in the 30-40% rejection level. Clearly if we're all just supposed to be passing each others' papers on, we're not doing a very good job of it or the rejection rates would not be so high.
The peer review process is highly variable, some reviewers may spend lots of time poring over every word in the manuscript, while others glance it over (or have one of their grad students look it over), tell the authors to fix a couple of minor things then let it go. Typically you will have 2-3 reviewers plus the editor. If the editor doesn't like it you're in big trouble and it's probably best to resubmit to a different journal. Anyway it may not be at all easy to change the manuscript to suit the reviewers, and it will almost always take some effort to revise and resubmit.
You do get to suggest reviewers, but the editor does not have to necessarily use those reviewers. If you're like me, you may not be able to come up with enough names to suggest and you're certain to get people that you don't know reviewing. On the current paper one of the reviewers is someone that I know (he chose to reveal his identity), and he is the person in the world most likely to give me a hard time, since I know he doesn't like my method of analysis. Nevertheless, if my paper makes it through (I'm thinking it will), I believe it will be generally better because of his review.
Peer review is far from a perfect process, and it is certainly not meant to catch every error there might be in a paper, but it is far better than having no review at all.
It certainly is more than a "rubber-stamp" on papers.
i won't talk from journey because i'm nonetheless in uncomplicated terms a intense schooler, yet i will talk from what i've got found out from somewhat analyze: interior the final style, David is desirable in that peer-assessment can take many varieties. in lots of fields that's the submission of a paper via an editor to regularly 2 or 3 different people who're experts that comprehend the artwork. maximum in many situations, certainly, those 'referees' are autonomous from one yet another and don't talk their recommendations with one yet another. notwithstanding, it is diverse for various different journals that have greater stringent standards. For "Nature" and "technology," that are very vast of their classes' concentration, a 2-step assessment technique is used. right it is the place an editorial board is used - if the board does not locate that the artwork is a leap forward interior the sphere (adequate to placed up interior the mag, in any case), it will be rejected. If the paper passes, then that's despatched out to referees for scrutiny. in this sense, the editorial board is peer-assessment and yet isn't on an identical time. The board does not examine for errors simply by fact the call of referees might, yet somewhat focuses greater on the outcomes of the artwork. those journals receive a brilliant array of (and a lot of) submissions and could clear out the terrific out. The assessment of the artwork remains in many situations as much as autonomous referees. to no remember if or no longer Einstein's papers have been peer-reviewed, i'm not sure if i will remark on that. If Einstein's papers have been study and revised via Planck and Wein, then they have been peer-reviewed. notwithstanding, that's not inevitably that straightforward. it would look that Annalen der Physik very strictly peer-comments eery paper earlier that's seen for e book, and a trifling assessment via 2 human beings does not look to greater healthful into this usual. it would help if I had get entry to to the Wiley InterScience internet site so i will do somewhat greater analyze on the mag's peer-assessment technique, notwithstanding that's inconveniently down suited now. If the standards for peer assessment have been much less one hundred and five years in the past, and if Planck and Wien certainly made techniques for revisions and did no longer purely study the papers, then that's pronounced the papers have been peer reviewed. i'm not sure nevertheless what constituted desirable peer assessment in 1905 for Annalen. i desire greater archives.
Yes. On average I review about 1 technical report per week. I have also reviewed a large number of technical papers and abstracts prior to submission to various industry association and technical sessions. I have on a few occasions reviewed papers submitted to me by ASME and SAE, prior to their presentation and publication. At the same time nearly all of my technical reports and papers are reviewed at numerous levels. Incidentally, just reviewed a coworkers technical article, that proposas and explain a paticular industry wide infintile failure mode of a critical utility grade wind turbine.
There was a time when I thought people like Mike were in fact sceptics but I now know for a fact that this site is only for contrarians,people that without evidence or common sense have their stage.Shame on all of them.
It seems whenever climate skeptics try to publish something, if accepted the paper ends up being found to contain errors so egregious that nobody can figure out how the manuscript was ever accepted in the first place. More often however, the paper does not pass peer review since the paper was found to contain errors so egregious even with revision it would not be publishable, leading to blog posts from the skeptic author about how unfair the peer-review process (with the result that the hogwash then appears in Energy & Environmental). So it is not surprising that the skeptics here know nothing about peer review, they have learned about if from a very distorted perspective. It would be like asking a career criminal to describe in an objective manner the workings of the criminal justice system. Their view is all one-sided and from an adversarial perspective.
Based on what I know of the peer-review in science, the skeptics here know nothing about it, and regularly display ignorance of the details of the process and how those details are both its strengths and weaknesses.