Peer Review: Old Problems, Novel Approaches

Help wanted. ‘A pall of gloom lies over the vital system of peer review. But the British Academy has some bright ideas. The Guardian’s Jessica Shepherd reports.

No fewer than three academic journals dismissed the economist George Akerlof’s paper The Market for Lemons as “trivial” and “too generic” when it was submitted in the late 1960s. Almost four decades later it was regarded as a seminal text and its author thought worthy of the Nobel prize for economics.
Peer review, when an academic submits a scholarly work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field for publication in a journal or for a grant, for example, has always been an imperfect science. But lately it has had more, and fiercer, critics.’


  1. Dov Henis says:

    Peer Review And Innovation In Science

    A. “The new face of peer review”, in “Funding Opportunities and Advice” forum, at

    refers to “changes to the peer review process”.

    B. However, “peer review process” is the least disturbing aspect of “peer review” in science

    Samples of factual observations of other negative aspects of peer review in science:
    “A U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation, and corrupting public support of science.”

    – “Peer review stifles innovation, perpetuates the status quo, and rewards the prominent. Peer review tends to block work that is either innovative or contrary to the reviewers’ perspective.”

    C. “Peer Review” is, factually, a tool of a “Subversive Activities Control Board”

    The most revolting corrupt aspect of peer review in science is its exploitation by the Science Establishment to tightly clamp its political and financial omni-everything rule and control, including stifling of any shred of scientific innovation.

    D. The corruption is not inherent in the tool, but in the nature of the Science Establishment

    “Implications Of Science And Technology Evolution”–?cq=1&p=419

    The peer review process is but a tool of the Establishment. The corruption is not inherent in the tool, but in the nature of the Science Establishment.

    As long as Science and Technologhy are considered and handled, conceptually and administratively, as one realm and one faculty this corruption cannot and will not be overcome. This conception and attitude is THE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE BY THE 21st CENTURY TECHNOLOGY CULTURE.

    Dov Henis

    (A DH Comment From The 22nd Century)–?cq=1

Speak Your Mind