« Hoarding | Main | A Challenge for Those Who Believe in the Perfection of Peer Review »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


That physicist's account was very very funny. Nobody with experience with the system could possibly believe it has the virtues we're told it has.

I don't actually have experience with it, so it's good to know it's exactly what I expected it would be.

His explanation is wrong, though. The 'debunkers' were high status, and can discredit whoever they like, and were obviously involved personally with the journal, or were perhaps even reviewer #2. This was simply a case of not letting the plebes get impertinent, with the complication of hoping for plausible deniability.

John Pepple

"... or were perhaps even reviewer #2."

I think there's a lot of that, actually. I had reviewers recommend things, and I suspected that they were recommending their own things. In one case, the reviewer made it seem as if a work by X would be the next big thing. It wasn't.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Blog powered by Typepad

My Books