« 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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2019

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 31    
Blog powered by Typepad

My Books