From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:43:49 EDT
I have certainly encountered less than helpful peer review, both of my own work and as anecdotes from others. However, such incidents tend to stand out in memory. After all, a glowing review is no more than what my work naturally deserves, whereas any criticism betrays malicious incompetence. A more objective approach would be to examine data on peer review. Tipler relies on anecdotal evidence. A more objective set of data comes from David L. Hull, Science as a Process. He examines data on peer review for Systematic Biology over several years. Despite often highly polarized views in the field at this time, including those of the editors, the acceptance rates appear not to have been biased towards any particular view.
This may not be an entirely representative example for Tipler's complaint because Systematic Biology during these years was in the midst of controversies over techniques of analyzing evolutionary patterns (cladistics, phenetics, etc.). As the editors favored cladistics, the newest approach, they may have been more sympathetic to novel ideas than the average editor. On the other hand, cladists have been notorious for favoring personal versions of cladistics and attacking other cladistic approaches.
Another difficulty is that this does not directly address the degree of novelty of the suggestion. This is hard to quantify. However, the claim that Nobel Prize winning ideas often got rejected at first is not necessarily a demonstration of a flawed system. Most prizes presumably reflect surprising discoveries rather than something that everyone expected all along.
There is also the question of how one might fix the system. It does not take long on the web to demonstrate the problems of a total lack of review. Cranks seem much more productive (in volume of print, website, etc.) than solid research, perhaps because they do not have to spend the time doing the research. Emiliani's absolute peer review idea has similar problems. It was inspired by the time that he received one of his own proposals from NSF to review. He praised it highly, recommending funding at twice the requested amount. He pointed out that this approach ensures that the reviewer is very knowledgeable about the topic, methods, etc.
Likewise, although historians now reject the warfare model for the history of faith and science, popular writers routinely endorse it, introducing blatant falsehoods. Just this morning I saw a book catalog blurb claiming that the KJV claimed Oct. 23, 4004 BC.
For that matter, questioning novelty is not necessarily a bad thing. I reviewed a paper on bivalve evolution that proposed a novel relationship based on two published DNA sequences. I noted that the sequences were rather peculiar (in addition to suggesting a peculiar relationship, in contradiction to other molecular data as well as morphology) and suggested that they might need re-examination. A revised version of the paper reported that the sequences were bacterial contaminants.
At present, I suspect that the editorial desire for a scoop balances or even outweighs the pressure to question unorthodox ideas. Purportedly ancient DNA frequently proves most similar to modern contaminants (bacteria, fungus, and humans being the main contenders), something that can be checked easily, yet papers are published based on such material.
Being good reviewers and reviewees has good potential as a witness. Unpopular Christian values such as humility and seeking the good of others play a significant role in the smooth working of the process. This can get noted. Steve Gould, in the introduction to a volume on bivalve evolution, commented favorably on a molecular paper for recognizing that the molecular results were not the final answer. This was not necessarily humility on our part; I am really a paleontologist and systematist who sees molecular systematics as a useful and marketable way to examine questions of interest. Naturally I am favorably inclined to the paleontological evidence and thus less likely to think that my molecular analysis is the final answer.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:27:08 -0400
>Aiming to get us back onto religion/science (the purpose of this listserve),
>I propose that we comment on the following article by physicist Frank
>Tipler, author of *The Physics of Immortality*.
>
>http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
>
>I have my doubts, incidentally, about certain details in the story he
>includes (from Michael Shermer) concerning a Newton scholar. If I can
>substantiate my doubts after checking with some friends, I'll fill them in.
>
>ted
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:35:38 EDT