tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post3107581314343981711..comments2024-02-29T11:22:30.853+01:00Comments on CJ on Mathematics and Science: Dysfunctional Peer Review of New Science? Claes Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-70266509811658540182013-02-23T12:09:28.087+01:002013-02-23T12:09:28.087+01:00They should just publish it in a "New" o...They should just publish it in a "New" or "Alternative Views" section, and invite conversation. Everyone who has been through the process knows peer review does not--cannot-- handle "revolutionary" ideas properly, that it is primarily a dogmatic defense of the status quo in any given field--as if they could never have allowed errors (like the "greenhouse effect") to creep in over the centuries. From my own experience, I liken peer review to a feudal apportioning of a field of science, among a relative few perennially government-funded and easily-published "Principal Investigators", who deign to argue only among themselves as the elite, and work to keep out ideas any of those feudal lords don't like, or outside of their own arguments.<br />Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.com