| TIP: Click on subject to list as thread! | ANSI |
| echo: | |
|---|---|
| to: | |
| from: | |
| date: | |
| subject: | Re: A Proposal For sbe Pe |
phillip smith wrote:- > > JE:- > > A few years ago I suggested that sbe should start to > > electronically publish sbe peer reviewed papers. > > This could include a paper by somebody on a > > registry of evolutionary theories. > PS:- > the suggestion was a little tongue in check however once you > fall into peer > review I think there is little point in replicating the process found in > current journals. JE:- Let me assure reader's that none of my proposals to sbe were meant to be "tongue in check" (or tongue in cheek). I have provided evidence that peer reviewed journals are not up to their given task because they have IMO become incestuous. Unless contesting refutable ideas are allowed to formally enter into free and fare debate and more established ideas are required to become testable to refutation, science ceases. It is my theory that conventional peer reviewed journals are today, subject to a form of cultural group selection (which amounts to a form of censorship by very powerful individuals) retarding and not extending the evolution of refutable theories within the biological sciences. My example is the the common misuse of simplified/over simplified models to replace and contest refutable theory. My particular example of model misuse remains Hamilton's Rule arguably the most misused and most influential misused model ever, in the History of science. Unless peer review allows non specialised non professionals into the peer review process bias will become automatic and so will illegibility due to the misuse of jargon. All testable ideas are simple. It is the job of researchers to keep them simple and able to be communicated to the general population within normal scientific literature. IMHO only the presence of non specialists on review panels can enable this. Thus I suggest sbe peer reviewed papers would constitute a new and more democratic way to appraise scientific papers. Such a process is an utterly worthwhile experiment that could do nothing except provide a benefit. I can't see a single disadvantage to this proposal except that it can apply pressure on any establishment bias that may exist within normal peer reviewed journals. No ethical person could possibly argue that such pressures constitute a disadvantage to the sciences. > PS:- > I do think there is room for a new model > similar to that > found used in > http://slashdot.org/ > > (There system while far from perfect does have some good points) > where basically anything can be submitted but can be moderated (scored) > and where meta moderation of moderators is used as quality control. > The good thing about the internet is that any one can publish > this is also > the bad thing about it. The issue is how do you know the standing of the > material you are reading. If you have a moderation board who rate the > content and a large group of people who rate the moderation board this is > tantamount to a real time citation index. So you can read an artile then > read the comments about an article then see standing of the > people who made > the comments JE:- I had a look and cannot see anything that I would call useful. Normal sbe dialog is _extremely_ useful. It is important not to deter ordinary people from asking questions and suggesting their point of view. Excessive moderation would be counter productive in this regard because, IMHO, it would intimidate posters and readers. A higher level of sbe cooperation is required not a change in the level that already exists. To me, the evolution to sbe peer reviewed papers constitutes an obvious evolution of sbe to fill such a niche. When a paper has been approved journals such as nature could become informed that they exist. I am sure the interest would be large and benefit the status of sbe within the scientific and non scientific community. Regards, John Edser Independent Researcher PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia edser{at}tpg.com.au --- þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com --- * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/7/04 9:59:05 PM* Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230) SEEN-BY: 633/267 270 5030/786 @PATH: 278/230 10/345 106/1 2000 633/267 |
|
| SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com | |
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.