Quote 1:
"In my opinion, in experimental High-Energy Physics (HEP), scientific papers could well do without external review. HEP collaborations count dozens, and in a few cases thousands, of collaborators. Each of them is responsible for what gets published and is entitled to take part in the review process before a paper is sent to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. So a powerful internal screening blocks anything that is even remotely questionable before it reaches a journal."
The above is probably a bit radical -I think it could be softened a bit, like saying "the majority of scientific papers". Do you agree on it anyway ?
Quote 2:
"Fundamental physics often advances with the presentation of ideas which may sound crazy at first. This exposes the field to being hijacked by deranged minds with their own “theory of everything” in their pocket. It can be difficult for a reviewer to know whether a study is worthy of publication and so there is a risk that reviewers decide on the basis of their personal biases and turn down good work, or let crazy papers pass."Perhaps a bit of context should be added. The quotes are mine, and they result from exchanges with the "Sense about Science" organization, a charitable trust that equips people to make sense of science and evidence on issues that matter to society. SAS is reviewing the issue of peer review, and will publish their work soon -they asked me to check the quotes above, and I thought you might contribute in improving them! The Sense about Science web site is at this link.
Comments