Text 693, 114 rader
Skriven 2004-11-07 21:59:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: A Proposal For sbe Pe
=================================




phillip smith <deletethis-phills@ihug.co.nz> wrote:-
> > JE:-
> > A few years ago I suggested that sbe should start to
> > electronically publish sbe peer reviewed papers.
> > This could include a paper by somebody on a
> > registry of evolutionary theories.

> PS:- 
>  the suggestion was a little tongue in check however once you 
> fall into peer
> review I think there is little point in replicating the process found in
> current journals. 

JE:-
Let me assure reader's that none of my proposals
to sbe were meant to be "tongue in check" (or tongue
in cheek). I have provided evidence that peer
reviewed journals are not up to their given task because 
they have IMO become incestuous. Unless contesting 
refutable ideas are allowed to formally
enter into free and fare debate and more established 
ideas are required to become testable to refutation,
science ceases. It is my theory that conventional 
peer reviewed journals are today, subject to a form of 
cultural group selection (which amounts to a form of
censorship by very powerful individuals) retarding and 
not extending the evolution of refutable theories 
within the biological sciences. My example is the
the common misuse of simplified/over simplified models 
to replace and contest refutable theory. My 
particular example of model misuse remains Hamilton's 
Rule arguably the most misused and most influential
misused model ever, in the History of science.

Unless peer review allows non specialised 
non professionals into the peer review process
bias will become automatic and so will illegibility
due to the misuse of jargon. All testable ideas are
simple. It is the job of researchers to keep
them simple and able to be communicated to the
general population within normal scientific literature. 
IMHO only the presence of non specialists on
review panels can enable this. Thus I suggest
sbe peer reviewed papers would constitute a new
and more democratic way to appraise scientific
papers. Such a process is an utterly worthwhile
experiment that could do nothing except provide
a benefit. I can't see a single disadvantage to
this proposal except that it can apply pressure
on any establishment bias that may exist
within normal peer reviewed journals.
No ethical person could possibly argue that 
such pressures constitute a disadvantage to
the sciences.


> PS:-
> I do think there is room for a new model 
> similar to that
> found used in
>  http://slashdot.org/
> 
> (There system while far from perfect does have some good points)
>  where basically anything can be submitted  but can be moderated (scored)
> and where meta moderation of moderators is used as quality control.
>  The good thing about the internet is that any one can publish 
> this is also
> the bad thing about it. The issue is how do you know the standing of the
> material you are reading. If you have a moderation board who rate the
> content and a large group of people who rate the moderation board this is
> tantamount to a real time citation index. So you can read an artile then
> read the comments about an article then see standing of the 
> people who made
> the comments

JE:-
I had a look and cannot see anything that I would
call useful. Normal sbe dialog is _extremely_ useful.
It is important not to deter ordinary people from asking
questions and suggesting their point of view. Excessive
moderation would be counter productive in this regard
because, IMHO, it would intimidate posters and readers.
A higher level of sbe cooperation is required not
a change in the level that already exists. To
me, the evolution to sbe peer reviewed papers
constitutes an obvious evolution of sbe to fill
such a niche. When a paper has been approved 
journals such as nature could become informed
that they exist. I am sure the interest would
be large and benefit the status of sbe within
the scientific and non scientific community.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/7/04 9:59:05 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)