Robert Higgs, a political economist at the Independent Institute, writes on Peer-to-Peer: “Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees. Unfortunately, personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and irresponsibility are as much part of the scientific world as any other.”
He goes on to point out that “scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world,” in which researchers attend the same conferences and review each other’s work for funding and publication. “If you do not belong to this tight fraternity,” Higgs argues, “it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a ‘top’ journal, or to acquire a government grant.”
He concludes by warning the non-scientist to be sceptical of government-funded research used to justify a government policy and scientists who appear at press conferences alongside politicians or activists. Your comments on this fiery post are welcome, here or at Peer to Peer.
Nature 449, xiii; 4 October 2007
-
From the blogosphere by Maxine Clarke
An archive of the "From the Blogosphere" column on the Authors page in Nature, highlighting nature.com blog posts of interest to scientists in their role as authors and peer-reviewers. We welcome comments and suggestions.
-
Independence of peer review -- 4 October 2007
- Date:
- Monday, 08 Oct ober 2007 - 14:24 UTC
Last updated: Monday, 08 Oct 2007 - 14:24 UTC
-
Comments
-
There is a controversy going on here in Brazil today: the press found out that a couple of history books being used in public schools were bringing some questionable views on issues involving XX century’s ideologies, and the (supposed) current government’s agenda.
The minister of education replied saying that the government doesn’t take a part in the decision process. The books are reviewed by anonymous university teachers, so there shouldn’t be influences from nobody.
…But I got myself thinking exactly this: the guy who assigns the books to the reviewers can chose the right book to the right teacher. The process should be further randomized and anonimized…