|
|
|
|
shank
New Member
Singapore
9 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2002 : 06:07:30
|
A constant challenge against pseudo-scientists is: "has your idea been accepted in a peer reviewed journal? If not dont talk about it."
How valid is this? I have about a dozen papers in peer reviewed journals in mechanical engineering and overall the experience does not convince me that a person with an innovative idea can get it published. I do not denigrate the concept of peer reviewed journal, but it seems to have gravitated into an unattractive state of affairs.
While the referees of one journal reject a paper, the same paper re-submitted to another journal is accepted with the oppposite type of criticisms. If you work under a well known professor, no problem. because ome refereees belong to a clique; those who belong to this clique can get even mediocre results accepted for publication. Also if your paper cuts into the area of research of a referee you are in for trouble. It will be rejected but the referee will skilfully use your results for his purpose.
I think pretty good research is going on today in industries (IBM labs, GE, Rolls Royce etc) without peer-reviewed journals - the appropriateness of the research being judged by practical results and workability and reliability.
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2002 : 07:40:31 [Permalink]
|
It seems that once people find out that science isn't perfect that leads them to assume that having no science at all is better. When people tell me that science isn't perfect, I tell them the answer then is to work on perfecting science, rather than to reject all reason.
Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a "war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2002 : 11:09:57 [Permalink]
|
I've no idea what the Engineering journal status is in Singapore. But in the USA and UK these problems with personalities in scientific journals don't really exist. You see these people are "peer reviewed" too.
Have you any suggestions for a better method of checking peoples work?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
shank
New Member
Singapore
9 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 05:37:58 [Permalink]
|
>Have you any suggestions for a better method of checking peoples work?
Huh?
What about the time before 1960's or 50's (before peer review journals) when all the major scientific and engineering achievements were made?
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 10:21:17 [Permalink]
|
There has been peer review since the concept of science started. It's in the definition of how science works. There have been peer review journals since the early 1700's.
It sounds like the problem that you have in Singapore is not the process itself but the honesty of the people involved in the process.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 10:30:17 [Permalink]
|
I believe that Slater is right.
ALL 'discoveries' have been peer reviewed, for better or worse (Eli Whitney: Cotton gin) one way or another. As soon as an inovation or discovery is made, others in the field will try to re-produce it. Remember the hoo-hah over 'Cold Fusion' some years back? That got shot down in a hurry by peer review.
Peer review is one of the most important parts of science. It provides verifacation and leaves little room for BS.
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
