Dear Nige,

there are ways nowadays to let your ideas be known by the scientific community without the need to get published in a peer-reviewed journal. The arxiv is an example. It is perfectible, and it has some screening which is probably not careful enough to let interesting but "way out" contributions pass, but it is a possibility for new ideas to emerge.

I do not think that for a scientific advancement, being published in a peer-reviewed journal is the absolute must. If new Einsteins arise, they will get the attention they deserve.

Cheers,
T.

Tommaso, You opened some important questions about peer review, but there might never be a perfect answer to how it should be done. I missed the earlier discussion, preoccupied with writing one of my books. This website does a good job making the attempt at openness. Writers in the fringe areas have to look around for a category that will accept an article, but there usually is one. It's a publishing business with an editorial policy. If a great many readers want to see a topic that is a bit far from center, the editors can find some way to present it. If there aren't many readers for a topic, even if it is technically sound and it advances the science, then it is really doubtful if a publishing business can afford the space to present it. In your context there is competition for publication space among groups of specialists. High energy physics doesn't have many fringe area writers compared to other types of physics. For one reason, the science is fairly well represented by main stream research groups. It uses data that comes from only a hand full of large research machines. There isn't much chance for an outsider to find something that was missed, or even understand the things that were discovered. In my experience, peer review was applied mostly to closely held information about dangerous things that can never be published. One item that I did get published was a report from a government sub committee in The Hague. The report roughly translated PREVENTING DISASTERS FROM PHOSGENE, failed peer review, not for technical reasons, but because a majority of the reviewers were reluctant to put the information in public domain. One agency director went against the group and published it in his own papers. The report remained in print for 30 years, during which there were no disasters of that type. Unfortunately there was a disaster of a different type. Another report from a different organization in a different country, roughly translated PREVENTING DISASTERS FROM ISOCYANATES was also reviewed and rejected for non technical reasones. There was no agency director to go against the group. Ten years later the recommendations were included in a remedial document that was eventually published. The remedial document in marked up form 903R85001 can be found in a simple search in EPA. http://www.epa.gov/nscep/ Hot link address is too long to put on a web page. If a reader finds it, the first page should have 903R85001 stamped near the top. The item I contributed to was in number 6 of 12 on page (ii) of the index. Other factories in other countries did not have the same type disaster, because they applied the remedies in advance. When you mention peer review and difficulty with publication, it gets rather serious when health and safety is involved. In a lifetime of technical achievements the peer reviews tended to be rather hard to pass, especially when experimental data was not over whelming. The greatest achievements were accomplished under highly successful managers who were able to get a full scale practical demonstration before the report was submitted for peer review. In those cases the reviewers listened politely, said nothing, and left quietly when the presentation was finished. A working machine with a wealth of technical data tends to pass peer review rather well.

Hi Luis,

I will have a look. Interesting concept! If you had mentioned it before, I would have probably discussed the model at the round table at ESOF.

Cheers,
T.

Reply to Anonymous Mathematician. Blog writing isn't directed toward the average 30 year old. Readers of science only make up about 20% of the population. School doesn't stop at 1850. The text books might stop there, but the teachers fill in some missing parts. Willing readers can become qualified if the writers are competent and knowledgeable about the reading public. There is a gap in knowledge of mathematics that is difficult to bridge. The disconnection is not in differential geometry. The gap is in multi linear analysis. That's where most readers get lost. Some time ago I recommended a rather old text book by G. A. Hawkins on multi linear analysis that is helpful in bridging the gap. http://www.amazon.com/Multilinear-Analysis-Students-Engineering-Science/... Albert Einstein was criticized for using mathematics that few people had studied, without defining his terms or telling his readers where to find the mathematics. Tolman provided the remedy in his book on Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology. It is a rather old and slightly obsolete example of an engineer explaining science to scientists, defining the terms and developing the mathematics. http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Thermodynamics-Cosmology-Richard-Tolman... Roger Penrose extended the explanations into a more modern view of science in his monumental book, THE ROAD TO REALITY. It differs from most writing in science by defining the terms, developing the mathematics, and refereeing to the explanation when the concept is used later. http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679454434 If writers of mathematics feel that the readers are not up to speed, then it is fairly simple to insert a link to the missing explanation. The words manifold, vector bundle, Riemannian metric, curvature tensor can be found rather easily in a search of the internet. The missing part is acquired quickly when a link tells where the fundamentals have been defined and developed. Isn’t it better to offer a remedy than to complain about the problem?