Peer review could reject breakthrough manuscripts, study shows

December 23, 2014 by Marcia Malory report
Credit: Charles Rondeau/public domain

(Phys.org)—A study by Kyle Siler of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and colleagues has found that well respected peer reviewed journals have rejected manuscripts that could discuss outstanding or breakthrough work. The researchers found that some manuscripts rejected by three leading medical journals went on to receive a large number of citations after publication in other journals. The study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The peer review system serves as a gatekeeping system for scientific research, designed to ensure the publication of only the most well researched studies with the most important findings. Scientists depend on publication of their research in for career advancement. While peer review can prevent the publication of unimportant or poorly researched manuscripts, some scholars are concerned that it protects the status quo and suppresses innovation.

To evaluate this claim, Siler and his team studied a dataset of manuscripts submitted to Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal and The Lancet in 2003 and 2004. These journals rejected 946 of the 1,008 manuscripts in the dataset. 722 of the rejected journals never made it past the editor's desk and therefore, never even reached the peer review stage, at one or more of these three publications.

Other journals subsequently published 757 of the rejected manuscripts. The researchers looked at the number of citations these manuscripts went on to receive. They used the number of citations as a measure of quality, reasoning that when performing their own research, scientists usually choose to build on work they consider of good quality.

Siler's team found that, for the most part, editors and at the three elite journals did a good job of predicting the popularity of particular research papers among scientists. When the researchers assigned numerical scores to evaluations by peer reviewers, they found that, among both accepted and rejected papers, those with lower scores tended to receive fewer citations. Rejected manuscripts tended to receive fewer citations than accepted ones, and desk rejected manuscripts tended to receive fewer citations than those not rejected until the peer review stage.

However, the team discovered that some of the desk rejected manuscripts went on to receive many citations. The elite journals had rejected 14 of the most highly cited manuscripts and had desk rejected 12 of those.

The researchers acknowledge that the three journals may have rejected some of the because they were more suited to specialist journals. Nevertheless, previous research suggests that peer review can incorporate bias, with reviewers basing decisions on the social characteristics of the authors or the intellectual content of the work. Gatekeepers tend to prefer work closer to their own and to favor the scientific status quo.

Explore further: A re-review of peer review: Leading journal looks to end the 'review nightmare'

More information: Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping, Kyle Siler, PNAS, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418218112

Abstract
Peer review is the main institution responsible for the evaluation and gestation of scientific research. Although peer review is widely seen as vital to scientific evaluation, anecdotal evidence abounds of gatekeeping mistakes in leading journals, such as rejecting seminal contributions or accepting mediocre submissions. Systematic evidence regarding the effectiveness—or lack thereof—of scientific gatekeeping is scant, largely because access to rejected manuscripts from journals is rarely available. Using a dataset of 1,008 manuscripts submitted to three elite medical journals, we show differences in citation outcomes for articles that received different appraisals from editors and peer reviewers. Among rejected articles, desk-rejected manuscripts, deemed as unworthy of peer review by editors, received fewer citations than those sent for peer review. Among both rejected and accepted articles, manuscripts with lower scores from peer reviewers received relatively fewer citations when they were eventually published. However, hindsight reveals numerous questionable gatekeeping decisions. Of the 808 eventually published articles in our dataset, our three focal journals rejected many highly cited manuscripts, including the 14 most popular; roughly the top 2 percent. Of those 14 articles, 12 were desk-rejected. This finding raises concerns regarding whether peer review is ill-suited to recognize and gestate the most impactful ideas and research. Despite this finding, results show that in our case studies, on the whole, there was value added in peer review. Editors and peer reviewers generally—but not always—made good decisions regarding the identification and promotion of quality in scientific manuscripts.

Related Stories

To publish or not to publish? That is the question

May 21, 2010

For more than 50 years medical research has been vetted through the peer-review process overseen by medical journal editors who assign reviewers to determine whether work merits publication. A study published in PLoS One ...

Recommended for you

An inflexible diet led to the disappearance of the cave bear

August 23, 2016

Senckenberg scientists have studied the feeding habits of the extinct cave bear. Based on the isotope composition in the collagen of the bears' bones, they were able to show that the large mammals subsisted on a purely vegan ...

109 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tom_Andersen
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2014
This study only looked at 'important' papers - not extraordinary ones. This is due to their sample size.

If you follow the trend, it means that truly revolutionary papers will have a very hard time to get published. The bigger the claim, the less likely its going to get published. Its very likely then that the next Einstein or Watson & Crick are right now NOT being published.

The internet has led to groupthink. Without acknowledging that its going to be hard to get big steps made.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2014
This is only surprising if you haven't been paying attention.

"I have no trouble publishing in Soviet astrophysical journals, but my work is unacceptable to the American astrophysical journals." Hannes Alfvén

"The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve the status quo." Hannes Alfvén
DimitrisPoulos
2.4 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2014
well editors, reviewers etc. are logically mentally failing to understnad a high quallity scientific work that takes a lot of effort to be conceived. scientific peer-reviewed litterature is full of fallacies too.

this site too is failling to think of mine personal work yet. perhaps I should go for the Russian commrades. haha
imido
Dec 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (19) Dec 23, 2014
OK, let's not get get our panties in a bunch.

12 of those 14 papers were desk rejected: which simply means the author did not follow the guidelines for submitting a paper (wrong format, failed to meet deadline, unclear language, etc).
That leaves 2 highly cited papers were rejected by actual peers.

Now, peer review isn't perfect. It's people who do peer review. Under time pressure. Unpaid. And the number of reviewers is from 3-5 (among them postdocs and PhD students. Professors like to hand off the work because they are busy with other stuff). So anyone who expects perfection should take a trip to planet Earth.

Given the other numbers cited peer review is doing pretty darn good, all things considered. If anyone has a better idea for keeping out the cranks: let's hear it.
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2014
Now, peer review isn't perfect.


I think only a fool would pretend it's anything close. Even so it's an EXTREMELY valuable tool and, AFAICS absolutely necessary in some form.

If one thinks that it doesn't help reinforce the status quo though...well..they're living in fantasy land.

Maybe there could be a journal that's dedicated to ONLY publishing those articles which "go against the grain" so to speak. I'm not talking about publishing the latest in AWT, or cold fusion, or any other tinfoil hattish stuff....but maybe something sort of in the middle that still has a strong bias toward the main stream?
KBK
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2014
One of the critical problems is that the number of cranks is far lower than the (illiterate) detractors might want you to believe.....detractors who are erroneously filled with emotions and projections into the concept of facts and laws.

To not confuse 'science' with 'engineering'.

Science has theory, in which the whole point is to adjust theory according to new discoveries. To correct the arrow of science, in flight. By it's very nature, this is about correcting science, in some cases. It is a guaranteed and absolutely necessary thing. Real and actual science has no facts, no laws. Only theory, hypothesis, and postulates.

The only place facts occur, is in the world of engineering... a place full of laws. Laws belong solely to dogma, religion,and human frailty. The laws are about making things for human use.....and have no place in scientific discovery.

The errors come when the whole process and that within.... confuse the idea of a fact/law, with what science actually is.
KBK
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2014
Let me put it to you this way:

Modern science is so long in the tooth, so settled in it's ways, so entrenched in its motions and acts--exactly like that of a dogmatic religion.....that when a Micheal Faraday comes along (and many have!!!) (exceedingly literate in the art of discovery ---but not in the math) ...this modern scientific system burns that new Faraday at the stake.

This issue of such burnings is only becoming more and more elitist and separate, more and more disconnected.

In private, many of the people in that system are fine. When in the 'system' and under the group eye and group hand/motions....they react/act/integrate like impassioned monkeys in a religious clan, and 'just follow the protocols and doctrines'.

In other words they fuck up on the risk, involvement, fear, and social side of the equation, most times in a near subliminal way, not realizing it is their own individual and group psychology that is the issue, not the given new ideas and new potentials.
Horus
5 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2014
``Gatekeepers tend to prefer work closer to their own and to favor the scientific status quo.''

Therefore I recommend an overhaul of the Gatekeeper process, its collection of scientists and its intended use, with respect to keep the sciences moving forward.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2014
Well ol Ira is for the reviewing and the keeping out the crankpots. If a crankpot has something to say let him write it here like usual and not bother the real Scientist-Skippys while they are working and writing papers for other real Scientist-Skippys to read.
oldscienceguy
5 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2014
I can't speak for physics, but in life sciences It makes a great deal of sense to publish surprising results in specialist journals, where the audience is better able to judge the suitability of the technical and analytic methods than the broader audience of a top tier journal. If the surprise turns out to be right, it will get noticed. Given the huge proportion of results that are never reproduced I'd rather see the second or third paper in the major journal.
DeliriousNeuron
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2014
Well ol Ira is for the reviewing and the keeping out the crankpots. If a crankpot has something to say let him write it here like usual and not bother the real Scientist-Skippys while they are working and writing papers for other real Scientist-Skippys to read.

And there you have it folks. What are you afraid of Ol Ira? You're simply a troll. What do you have to protect?
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2014
Well ol Ira is for the reviewing and the keeping out the crankpots. If a crankpot has something to say let him write it here like usual and not bother the real Scientist-Skippys while they are working and writing papers for other real Scientist-Skippys to read.

And there you have it folks. What are you afraid of Ol Ira? You're simply a troll. What do you have to protect?


Why should I be afraid of anything Skippy. I said the crankpots can still write all their crankpot ideas here like usual. I was only suggesting that they keep on keeping them out of the real Scientist-Skippys important paper places so not to bother them doing their real Scientist-Skippy type of work.

You got something I should be afraid of Cher? What is this thing I should be afraid of? If it is your crankpot writings, it must not scare me to much because when I am looking for good funny silly stuff I read them sometimes.
full_disclosure
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2014
Well ol Ira is for the reviewing and the keeping out the crankpots. If a crankpot has something to say let him write it here like usual and not bother the real Scientist-Skippys while they are working and writing papers for other real Scientist-Skippys to read.

And there you have it folks. What are you afraid of Ol Ira? You're simply a troll. What do you have to protect?


It's like he's talking to a hand puppy….who answers him….those long sleeve shirts that tie in the back must be cutting off his oxygen.
imido
Dec 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2014
Obviously, peer review is the only option for maintaining quality of scientific publications, but that is no reason to be complacent. Scientists should aspire continuous improvement of the current practice. If indeed ground breaking papers are refused by leading journals, that should not be ignored. How can this happen ? One simple step to improvement would be to recite the following limerick each time before writing a report:

There once was a fine referee
Who reviewed each paper with glee:
What's new is not true and what's true is not new
Unless it's been published by me !
Reg Mundy
2.2 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2014
If you think its bad now, you should have tried getting stuff published in the 60's and 70's! I gave up, and published in the form of a book.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2014
I think only a fool would pretend it's anything close.

Peer review isn't half bad. Look at the numbers. In any other business that WOULD count as near perfect. I know now other business where unpaid labor produces that good results...nor any where paid labor does for that matter.
Yes there are weaknesses. But as long as no one comes up with a better system the griping is just that: griping.

Maybe there could be a journal that's dedicated to ONLY publishing those articles which "go against the grain" so to speak.

There are uncountable of those. They're full of crank articles. (And the people with a legitemately good article will eventually get published in peer reviewed journal. There's nothing stopping them from submitting elsewhere). In the end there's always arxiv.

`Gatekeepers tend to prefer work closer to their own and to favor the scientific status quo.'

Peer reviewers can ONLY make quality judements on stuff that is somewhat close to their own.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2014
Reading the comments here there seems to be a very weird (and utterly wrong) perception of what science is and what scientists do (and what the peer review process is).

There is nothing to be gained by not passing an article. Nothing. In any case you're not the only reviewer and you don't know who the others are.
So even if you have a personal bone to pick there's no chance that your vote will stop the paper if it's good. (Note: to reject a paper you have to JUSTIFY your rejection. With comments how the author can address these. The author can opt to address them or justify why the reviewer is wrong. in any case a mere "I don't like it" will not stop a paper. you have to find FACTUAL fault with it)

Scientists thrive on good papers (by others!). It is what feeds ideas, new methods, and new data into your OWN work. No scientist is an island. That ship sailed 80-100 years ago. You hope that someone wrote an outstanding paper when you review.
Reg Mundy
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2014
@AP
in any case a mere "I don't like it" will not stop a paper. you have to find FACTUAL fault with it)

Depends on what the reviewer deems to be FACTUAL. All theories start without FACTUAL proof initially, the FACTS come later. Usually, the new theories are based on different interpretations of FACTS than established beliefs, e.g. the Sun goes round the Earth.
abhi23hit
2 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2014
Sadly reviewer decisions are not always based on the scientific content of the manuscript. Their judgement can be biased or personal.

I have always felt that it is unnecessary for a Reviewer (or even Editor) to know the Authors Name or Affiliation. Journal office can send them the Manuscript without any names/affiliation. They can make their decisions solely based on the "Scientific Content" of the manuscript.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2014
For all of you who think that there is a conspiracy to suppress breakthroughs in science, think about this. Since 1905 when Einstein put forward 4 breakthroughs including photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, Special Relativity and Mass = Energy equivalent.

Later in the 1910s and 1920s, the theories of General Relativity and quantum mechanics were formed and published. In the 1930s and 1940s theories of the expanding universe and cosmology were introduced. In the 1950s and 1960s the concepts of quantumelectrodynamics were firmed up. In the 1970s to 1990s the Standard Model was developed. In the 1995-6 discoveries of the continued inflation of the Universe were made. I have lived in an amazing time for a scientist to be alive. Things are being discovered, tested, and accepted in all fields. Those who think there is some conspiracy to preclude their pet theory just don't have to ability to test it themselves and submit it as a paper.
Pediopal
5 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2014
The flip side of this is no peer review or censorship of peer reviews in order to sell books.
Two excellent examples are Dennis Stanford and Doug Owsley both with the Smithsonian.
Stanford continues to promote his outdated and dispelled hypothesis of Atlantic crossings to North America by Solutreans. Owsley is still pushing Polynesians as the actual Paleo-Indians.
Even with DNA proving the original colonizers of the "new" World were the ancestors of today's contemporary Indians, Owsley and Stanford still crank out book after book supporting their personal pet theories.
Adding the word "Smithsonian" makes people think books written or information provided is factual and well researched when in some cases it is actually just some crazy book sales promotion for a couple of employees with over active imaginations.
Egleton
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2014
Dr Iain McGilchrist , Psychiatrist, has studied how we use our two brains. The Left brain makes up models of reality, the Right brain experiences the gestaldt. (Empirical data).
He argues that there is an unsubtle shift in the balance in favour of the Left hemisphere, since the Enlightenment.
This is a psychiatric malady and manifests in a rejection of empirical evidence in favour of models of reality.
The unconsious bias is "If the evidence conflicts with the model, then the evidence must be wrong."
Which is not what Sir Thomas Bacon advised. Science must be based on empirical evidence, and the model must be reshaped to fit the evidence.
This phenomenon shows up again and again in unreasonably rejected observations.
The form that the observation is presented is one of style and culture, not substance. It could be presented by a Youtube video and still be valid.
mooster75
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2014
I'm not sure what the big deal here is. The overwhelming majority of the studies were published elsewhere after the prestigious (ie., 'stodgy') journal rejected it.
imido
Dec 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2014
Depends on what the reviewer deems to be FACTUAL. All theories start without FACTUAL proof initially,

But theories have to be self consistent and not fly in the face of observed evidence (e.g. like your 'theories'). In that way one can find factual fault with a theory. if it doesn't mesh with observed data or leads to internal contradiction then that's a legitimate reason to reject it.

Even different interpretations of facts must adhere to this (Note how e.g. Einstein's new interpretation of the facts - making time and space mutable - did not lead to internal contradictions and was also consistent with all observables at the time)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2014
I have always felt that it is unnecessary for a Reviewer (or even Editor) to know the Authors Name or Affiliation.

That's why reviewers don't. It's a blind process. Papers are sent out anonymized.

Editors must know the author because they are in charge of passing review comments from reviewers back to the author. Editors do NOT make a content-based judgement, They judge merely whether it's in the right field for the journal and whether the format is correct.

Note: to reject a paper you have to JUSTIFY your rejection
.

Yes, in the way "Your study is interesting but not suitable for our type of journal, sorry". Did you ever attempt to publish something?

Yes, and funnily enough that is exactly what happened to my last paper. I tried to publish in IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, but the editor suggested I publish in IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering instead (where it was accepted and published).
imido
Dec 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mooster75
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2014
This study was about peer-review studies, not about prestigious journals.

Then even more so: what's the problem? The studies were published.
imido
Dec 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2014
Of course the people who don't perceive it as a problem cannot contribute to its solution.

Again: if you have a better idea, let's hear it.

There is always room for improvement. E.g. I would like to have larger review panels, but the load on researchers is already big enough as it is. It's just not feasible.
(As noted: it's unpaid time you put into reviews. On the plus side: you get to read papers weeks/months before they are published - which is at least 5 kinds of awesome)

We're not talking about an easy quality check like 'Hanes inspector No. 12" where you can run down a checklist. We're talking research. Stuff that has never been seen before. Ever. At the point of review there is only one true expert: The author(s). And the people who judge must do the best they can with what they are provided. They aren't infallible, but being independent of one another and being smart and well versed in the same field the results are pretty good.
Bongstar420
1.9 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2014
This study only looked at 'important' papers - not extraordinary ones. This is due to their sample size.

If you follow the trend, it means that truly revolutionary papers will have a very hard time to get published. The bigger the claim, the less likely its going to get published. Its very likely then that the next Einstein or Watson & Crick are right now NOT being published.

The internet has led to groupthink. Without acknowledging that its going to be hard to get big steps made.


Its always been like that. New findings always upset the establishment. Its dumb to think that those at the top are always ready to admit they spent their entire careers being wrong or otherwise short sighted.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2014
@Bongstar

"Its always been like that. New findings always upset the establishment. Its dumb to think that those at the top are always ready to admit they spent their entire careers being wrong or otherwise short sighted."

Geologist and other scientist were highly skeptical of continental drift until a mechanism was found. After 1968 it became universally accepted except for a very view diehards and pseudoscientic cranks.
mooster75
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2014
Of course the people who don't perceive it as a problem cannot contribute to its solution. They rather tend to conserve the existing status, being satisfied with it.

You know, if you can't answer the question, it's okay to admit it. Just repeating past posts doesn't really contribute anything.
imido
Dec 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 25, 2014
While you are busy getting your rejected paper back, addressing the reviewers issues and resubmitting, the competing lab steals your research, replicates it, and publishes it under their own name.


I am sure you think that is a really good theory Skippy. But why you not put it to the test like ol Ira just did. Ask the google-Skippy how much that happens from all the thousands of rejected papers every year. Google-Skippy only knows about four or three of that, and three of them is the same crankpots morons just acting like fools and everybody is making the fun with them.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2014
So, if a competing lab gets to review your paper, and they want to be dicks, they will come up with bull shit reasons why your paper should be rejected.

Just because on reviewer rejects a paper does not mean that the paper will be rejected by the journal. Especially if it's an obvious bullshit reason and none of the other reviewers found it.

Handing in such a review will mean that that reviewer can be expected to have reviewed his last paper, BTW. Reviewer's reputations are on the line with every review.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2014
While you are busy getting your rejected paper back, addressing the reviewers issues and resubmitting, the competing lab steals your research, replicates it, and publishes

That's an insane idea - even by your standards.
1) Other labs don't have the data you base your paper on. So they can't replicate off the cuff in the time between review and resubmission (and remember: THEY would have to do the work, write, and go through the entire submission porcess too...And they won't get in the same journal. There's prestigious journals you want to publish in - not just any journal.)

2) Papers are usually incremental advances based on previous papers. A lab that comes out of nowhere and publishes your same results without the data (and you being ON RECORD having submitted elsewhere months earlier) would find itself in a position where questions get asked.

Hint for you: Start getting some real experience - and stop pulling crazy conspiracies out your hole.
imido
Dec 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
richard_f_cronin
1 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2014
The greatest problem of the current "peer" review process is "peer". In general, the review is within one (1) stated discipline. To quote Dr. J. Marvin Herndon: "The visionary evolutionist, Lynn Margulis, taught the importance of envisioning the Earth as a whole, rather than as unrelated segments spread among various scientific specialties." Dr. Margulis was the wife of Carl Sagan, and her pronouncement of Endosymbiosis was entirely rejected by mainstream biologists of her era. Just as is the work of Dr. J. Marvin Herndon (The GeoReactor). Is it so hard to understand that fission ( at the core of every planet) is the ever-present counterpart to fusion ( the stars) across the Universe ?
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2014
Lynn Margulis got one very important thing right (Endosymbiosis) but other things wrong. Herndon has no accomplishments as comparable and his hypothesis is just plain silly.

http://en.wikiped...Margulis
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2014
I'm dealing only with insane ideas

That explains a thing or two.

and with really good theories

You wouldn't know a good theory if the title was "Good Theory". From what you have written here in the past few years you have an understanding of science and the scientific process that seems to be gleaned from comic books and hollywood movies exclusively.

Sorry, but that does not make you a good judge of what constitutes a good theory or not. Get an education. Then you will quickly see what you are presenting here is utter bunk.
chakr
1 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2014
The work of Galois was rejected by the French Academy after peer review by Fourier and others.
imido
Dec 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 26, 2014
that's an insane idea - even by your standards
I'm dealing only with insane ideas and with really good theories only. According http://www.ijssh....H058.pdf of peer review....


How you are Zephir-Skippy? I'm good thanks. The Skippy that did that study article paper thing is he the same Valentine-Cawley-Skippy who makes the Youtube videos about his son who has the IQ of 350 or 345? I think he goes by the name of of Mr-Genuis-Skippy-Man.

So that must be a good linkum what you post there. What his genius son have to say about the peer-Skippys reviewing your stuffs? And where he weighs in on the AWT and neutrinos from the future?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2014
Ugh the wackos will remember this statistical analysis, but ignore every hard fact that proved them wrong in the past 200 years
McIek
Dec 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Glad the Inhaler
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2014
Peer review blocks scientific progress every day of every week. The "Doyens of Peer Review" (as I call them) play the role the Roman Church played in the Middle Ages, gatekeeper of science, protector of the Standard Model. And like the Church before them, these modern-day gatekeepers brook no heresy. Roundly vilified with careers dashed on the shoals of academic isolation be they who dare to test the resolve of those who job is to protect the Standard Model.

This is why we are still saddled with the abundantly falsified-by-observation "Big Bang " theory. Just ask the recently departed modern-day Galileo named Halton Arp, whose meticulous quasar observations alone disprove Big Bang. They rescinded his telescope time, destroyed his career, and all but buried his information. Thus astrophysics is stalled in this world. In olden days when amateur scientists were making many of the discoveries and publishing on their own account for all to see, this was not the problem it is today.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2014
Glad, I read the stuff of Arp, and did not see his idea of redshift origins. Did he just say "No, it isn't", then base a theory on that without telling us why and how?

Do you know to what he ascribes redshift?
McIek
Dec 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Z99
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2014
Few if any comments has addressed the key point (afaiac): NONE of the 14 most cited papers (most popular) were published in those 3 top journals. A reasonable conclusion is that the journals are epic fails or their mission isn't to challenge the status quo. My response to the "we can't have checklists, its Research!": Surgeons refused to adopt checklists ("every patient, every operation is different"). But where adoption did occur, patient complications (including deaths) dropped greatly. Experts often overestimate their own competence and underestimate their biases. OTOH, impact might be better than citations, and questions about filtering out self-citations and group incest citations occur to me. I also didn't see anyone seriously questioning the assumption that medical "science" is science research rather than engineering research...a windmill for another day. Papers should be scored and results given to authors, if rejected, imho.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2014
Experts often overestimate their own competence and underestimate their biases

Again: what's the alternative? Asking people in the street whether a paper should be accepted or not? Seriously?

Those best qualified to make a judgement should judge. And those happento bet he experts who have actually experience of a particular field.
And judgement is necessary because there area lot of cranks out there. If you just publish anything on a first-come-first-serve basis then you get Mad Magazine.

That peer review isn't perfect isn't news (even though the statistics support that it is very, very good). It WOULD be news if someone came up with a better idea,.
McIek
Dec 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2014
But are the specialists in given field really these best ones qualified for it?

*Sigh*..again: who else? If you have no answer for this stop griping.
The 'public' is certainly not qualified to read a paper and see whether it's good or not. The lack the solid founding of math, physics, statistics and the particular field.

They could merely judge on whether it's flashy enough. Science isn't a popularity contest.

specialists are biased against every competition

That's insane. When you review you don't know where in the world the research originated from (peer review is anonymized, remember?) - hence the chance that you're actually vying for the same funding money is infinitesimal. There's no competition there.

And science is certainly not a profession you choose for the fame. So people aren't jostling for the limelight, either.
McIek
Dec 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2014
Oh man... you truly only know of science what you read in comics.
I advise you to go talk to actual scientists and find out just how utterly wrong your world-view is.

But I suspect you want to continue living in your fantasy world. (For what reason exactly? does ranting against non-existent situations get you off?)

So I'll leave you to it. Some people need religion to give them a sense of self-worth...and you obvioulsy have created your own: Playing Don Qiuxote - fighting giants where in reality there exist windmills.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2014
"What observational or experimental evidence is there that would convince a theorist that their theory is wrong? If there is none, then the theory is not a scientific theory. "
http://motherboar...age-lede

If 'peers' say it IS a scientific theory, are the 'peers' correct?
McIek
Dec 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 29, 2014
Hey Zephir-Skippy, how you are podna?

I only know science from real life, which is even more freaky.


I am sorry to hear that Cher. Maybe things will get better with you soon.

The scientists trolled us eighty years with cold fusion.


Maybe the scientist-Skippys are doing that for pay-back cause they get trolled here so much by the pretend-scientist-Skippy.

Which giants are here to fight? I can see only incompetent mediocre dwarfs all around...


From here all I see are normal sized peoples, so I am not sure what you talking about with that Skippy.
McIek
Dec 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2014
Hi everyone. :) Just popped in to wish you all a safe and happy new year.

PS: While I 'm here, some general parting comment/reminders for 'peer review' discussions:

As I pointed out during the BICEPS discussion, the BIAS works two ways: to disallow/delay good ideas/work AND ALSO to allow/entrench BAD ideas/work to become 'inbuilt' for DECADES into the literature/methods/interpretations/assumptions for future work ( as demonstrated by BICEP2 instance). Such damaging 'inbuilt bias' is insidious and MUCH WORSE than outright unfair dismissal could ever be....as explained by this article...

http://phys.org/n...ray.html

See also PO articles re unpalatable truths re scientific research/motivations etc...

http://phys.org/n...ize.html

http://phys.org/n...vor.html

Cosmology theory/literature/interpretations is especially vulnerable/rife. Careful!

Bye all. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2014
PPS: Suggestion for improving peer review system and science research/literature standards and accountability generally...

1) Allow all work to be published as is now in arxiv/vixra/books and internet forums; and encourage all UNbiased scientists/intellects to discuss thoroughly before any 'official' publication is 'accepted'. To this end, DISALLOW all 'experts' whose basis for negativity/dismissal is based on prior bias entrenched in the literature due to prior peer review failures which allowed 'incestuous approvals system' to 'pass' bad work which is then cited as excuse for passing future bad work and/or (even more important) for dismissing future good work which has not been properly discussed due to prior 'literature bias' already built into the incestuous approvals/dismissals by biased/uncritical 'peers' in the process.

Only ideas/work thus 'cleaned' of prior inbuilt biases is 'passed'.

Good luck to us all in the future, in science and humanity. Bye for now.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 29, 2014
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? We do not see you much around here anymore. Maybe you been busy with your book about toes, how is he going? Will it be out soon?

Oh yeah I almost forget. You still trying to tell peoples about what not read and what to read. You really should stop doing that all the time. Why you not write something good to read instead of just complaining about what other peoples are writing that is bad?
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 29, 2014
Before I log out...

PPPS: Of course, if the above suggestion is implemented properly, there will be no more 'crazy/drunk/drugged Uncles' to skew the ratings pages with his uncomprehending trolling 'bot-votes' and malignant sabotage of discussion. Poor poor poor irrelevant 'Uncle' morons; what will they do with their time and pea-brains when the forums finally disallow unargued 'votes' and 'insults' and trolls like that?

Who cares!

Especially when this irrelevant crazy-drunk 'Uncle' moron thinks REFERENCES for points made are 'not allowed' in his troll mindset (I refer to his 'mind' very very loosely, obviously).

Bye for now, everyone. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (12) Dec 29, 2014
Before I log out...

PPPS: Of course, if the above suggestion is implemented properly, there will be no more 'crazy/drunk/drugged Uncles' to skew the ratings pages with his uncomprehending trolling 'bot-votes' and malignant sabotage of discussion. Poor poor poor irrelevant 'Uncle' morons; what will they do with their time and pea-brains when the forums finally disallow unargued 'votes' and 'insults' and trolls like that?

Who cares!

Bye for now, everyone. :)


Well you don't have to be so rude about it. I was trying to talk nice to you Skippy. Maybe you get happier after the new years I hope.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 29, 2014
Piss off, irrelevant nitwit. Your unargued votes and insults deserve what they deserve. You poor poor internet twit.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2014
Piss off, irrelevant nitwit. Your unargued votes and insults deserve what they deserve. You poor poor internet twit.


Well if that is how you are going to act again I am going to quit trying to be nice to you Skippy. Why you not just go play with your book about the toes again.

And one more another thing, why you get so mad because I won't argue about the bad karma votes? I don't feel like arguing with you or anybody else about that. Everybody gets a vote and they shouldn't have to argue about them.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2014
Poor poor irrelevant Uncle morons. Still imagining anyone cares about their pathetic internet trolling 'act' or their stupid opinions about anything or anyone at all. Poor poor internet nits.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 29, 2014
Poor poor irrelevant Uncle morons. Still imagining anyone cares about their pathetic internet trolling 'act' or their stupid opinions about anything or anyone at all. Poor poor nits.


Skippy, I am not going to talk with you anymore if all you can do is try to pick the fight and make me the misere all the times. Go and see if you can find somebody else to argue with since I told you I don't want to. But I am still going to give you the bad karma points even though I am not going to argue about them like you ask for me to do.

Now why you not just go do your diligence stuffs and toes? Every time you come here you in the bad moods.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2014
Poor poor Uncle twit. Still begging for attention even though his bot-voting and trolling/lying act has been exposed. How insensible can such 'crazy Uncle' morons get? Yeah, that insensible. Irrelevant twerps are like that....too stupid to take the hint. Poor poor insensible irrelevant troll Uncle clod.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2014
Your unargued votes and insults deserve what they deserve.

Looks like peer review to me.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2014
Hi anti. :) You just betrayed yourself, mate!

Your support for your internet idiot Uncle is exactly why you'd make a BIASED 'reviewer'. It exemplifies what is WRONG. But you still won't see it, will you?

Your response to my exposure of your idiot Uncle...
Your unargued votes and insults deserve what they deserve.

Looks like peer review to me.
...is all too TRUE!

Uncle Ira's unargued irrelevant 'bot-votes', based on 'personality/self-interest' TROLL and discussion SABOTAGE motives/agenda, is all TOO much like the patently broken 'peer review process' YOU still support.

Despite it being responsible for rejecting/delaying good ideas/work...AND WORSE...all the while allowing bad ideas/'work' to pass, and so skew the literature/assumptions input to subsequent bad work/interpretations!

Unbiased scientists are noticing this now, eg:

http://phys.org/n...ray.html

Read it; then stop being your idiot Uncle's idiot Nephew, mate! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2014
PS: antialias, take off your rose-coloured glasses and biased blinkers and go read yet more examples of the flawed nature of the PEOPLE on who you base your idealistic beliefs on. I tried to point all this out to you before, but again you didn't listen; but just rationalized away the inconvenient truths of the matter.

Here are some latest articles on why we should be ever vigilant against insidious effects of HUMAN self-interest and PROFESSIONAL biases etc in the peer review system that has been allowed to become so anti-science in effect as already pointed out to you...

http://phys.org/n...ize.html

Now, antialias, please just stop being an idiot and just LOOK at the evidence that makes your stance and support for the idiot Uncle Ira's behaviour look BIASED and SELF-INTERESTED ego-tripping on your part.

Just drop your ego and excuses for this new year. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2014
PPS: antialias, here's another example of above which you should read and acknowledge to yourself...

http://phys.org/n...vor.html

Mate, seriously, while ever you keep making ego-tripping and biased excuses to defend the indefensible regarding that (and also regarding Uncle Ira's anti-science/discussion sabotage/trolls), you will ever be known and self-BRANDED as just the type of PEOPLE about which the articles speak when the FLAWS of the research/review process are pointed out.

Don't be part of the problem, ant; be part of the solution...be a REAL BRAVE UNBIASED SCIENTIST from now on....no matter what ego-unpalatable truths you have to face.

And for the love of science and humanity, do drop your idiotic defense of that idiotic troll Uncle of yours for this new year, quick!

Good luck, good thinking and bye for now, anti, everyone! :)
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2015
RC
Wow see your vitriol level is on max yet again. What topped it up this time or is it permanently stuck there now?

Did Little Golden Books reject the ToE yet again? Remember BIG colour pictures and rhyming phrases to entertain the kiddies is what they prefer. Try more pictures before resubmission, that way the 4 yr olds might not reject your book at the next peer review.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2015
Don't be part of the problem, ant; be part of the solution...be a REAL BRAVE UNBIASED SCIENTIST
@OZGuy
the funniest thing about this is that antialias_physorg is an actual PhD scientist with publications and more and that looney the rc-TROLL is trying to tell him how to be objective...
and the reason why is because AA_P doesn't believe in rc's pseudoscience and chooses who he likes & dislikes even though rc told him not to like someone

he should really go all ape over that one, considering i think he hates me more than Ira!

His idea of fair treatment means everyone listens to him and does what he says or he will flood the site with OT diatribe and spread lies or misinformation without end

PM me at Sapo's joint for more info ... I'll tell you all about some of his stunts

when he gets OT like above, just report him and downrate
it serves NO purpose except to feed his ego
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
Hi OZGuy, Stumpy. :)

Your 'personality cult' based BIAS has again caused you to ignore the evidence I referenced to support what I have been cautioning you about both the flawed peer review system; and the flawed research/people it has entrenched by its obvious failures which have been increasingly acknowledged by honest scientists themselves. Remember the obvious confirmation bias which made the BICEP2 'results' a mockery of 'scientific work'? It was not the first time that has happened over the last few decades in the CMB 'studies' and 'assumptions' and 'results'.

Confirmation bias has been entrenched in all CMB/BigBang studies/peer reviews for DECADES. It has also been allowed to entrench itself in the Gamma Ray field/studies/assumptions, as noted by some of the more honest, brave and objective mainstream scientists here...

http://phys.org/n...ray.html

Why keep attacking, and lying about, the messenger while ignoring the evidence re all this?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
RC
Wow see your vitriol level is on max yet again. What topped it up this time or is it permanently stuck there now?


@ Oz-Skippy. Don't mind him, he is just mad because he doesn't have any peers to help him feel like he is the wise and all knowing scientist-Skippy. If you don't play along like he is the smartest guy on the block he gets kind of teechy.

He doesn't realize that he should be thankful for the physorg because here is the only place he has peers to play act with. Like Bennie-Skippy, Reg-Skippy, Zephir-Skippy, and NAZI-can't-drive-Skippy and some other ones.

Well, maybe I should not put the Zephir-Skippy in there, Zephir-Skippy is a whole lot smarter than those other-Skippys.

Really-Skippy gets hung up on getting his diligence done when he is trying to help other peoples doing their diligence. And when he is battling the evil mafia-troll-gang-moderator-bot-blah-blah-blah peoples haunting the interweb holding back science.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2015

IRA
I know he gets teechy, so many conspiracies against him so few hours in the day to rant about them, tough gig, glad it aint mine.

As you'd recall RC made the claim that'd he'd written a Theory of Everything but wouldn't publish for fear of plagiarism. When questioned about it he spent days writing vitriolic rants basically stating the the ToE was perfection but no-one but him could comprehend it as EVERYONE ELSE was too stupid.

Anyone who makes claims that they are brilliant then posts vitriolic rants about how stupid the rest of us are needs a reality check (pun intended) every now again, lest they think us dumb folks have no long-term memory and they can pretend they never made the claim in the first place.

I'm not lying awake at night worrying what RC thinks of me, I occasionally laugh about it but worry.. pas mon ami.

Honestly I doubt anyone is worrying about what RC thinks of them, RC on the other hand...
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
@ Oz-Skippy. He is the big fun, eh? The more mad he gets, the more funny he gets, and he is so smart he can not figure that out. Really-Skippy is a weird one for sure. I just wish he would do better with his diligence.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. I also wish he would hurry up with this toes thing about everything he is working on. He says he has been working on him for 60 years and I don't want to wait for another 60 years to read him if it is as good he says it it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
Hi OZGuy. :) Your responses epitomize 'peer review' system's problems which other mainstreamers increasingly pointing out for those who are NOT biased.

It is 'scientists' like you that are at the root of the problems for mainstream science and 'peer review' loss of credibility.

I supplied references to support my cautions re confirmation bias entrenched in the various CMB/BBang/Gamma Ray Burster etc 'studies/literature' for decades.

But you don't read the refs or address the evidence. You just 'gossip and deny'.

Continue 'lying gossip' based on ignorant personality-cult biases while avoiding facing the real problems pointed out....exactly like GW deniers avoiding facing the real problems even as the climate science evidence has become irrefutable.

Go ahead, continue to downvote based on person/source rather than scientific evidence presented...and then tell us again how 'objective' you are, and how 'peer review works so well' for science publishing. Deniers.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
Poor poor Uncle Bot-Vote Idiot. Doomed to yet another year of self-made automated malignant irrelevance to any and all genuine and intelligent science and humanity discourse. Poor poor sod.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2015
@ Really-Skippy how you are Cher? I'm fine, thanks. But I want to ask you the serious question, okayee?

I believe the real-scientist-Skippys are on the right track with the climate changing and AWG (that means Us-Caused-Global-Getting-Hotter) stuffs. And all those deniers always make the fun of me because I believe them. Do you have someway I can know and tell the deniers that the real AWG-scientist-Skippys are doing their diligences the right way? Or should I just refer them to you and let them argue with you about doing the diligence?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. How is the toes book about everything coming along? I really would like to read him sometime before I am dead and dust.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
Poor poor Uncle Bot-Vote Idiot. Doomed to yet another year of self-made automated malignant irrelevance to any and all genuine and intelligent science and humanity discourse. Poor poor sod.


@ Really-Skippy. Non Cher. Everything it is good. I had a great Christmas and New Years. I was home for Christmas for the first time in four or three years. I work on New Years though. But that is okay because I don't care much for the partying.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2015
Poor Uncle Bot-voter. Still plenty of 'empty sound' and hypocritical lying gossip issuing from his trolling posts, but nary a sign yet in the new year of any functional brain cells or comprehension faculties worth a damn. And even less sign of good science and humanity ethics.

No more time to waste on you and your inane 'goodguy-badguy' trolling twallop. Irrelevant twerp.

Good luck to you in he new year, you'll need it despite your claiming you don't need any. We all need some good luck; but insensible internet trolling tragics like you need more than most. And denial hasn't helped you so far. Obviously. Do better, you poor poor sod.
RealityCheck
1.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
Stay safe, everyone (even the Uncle idiot). :)
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2015
Stay safe, everyone (even the Uncle idiot). :)


Okayeei. Apology accepted, again, but only one time this year, not like last year over and over. Don't use him up on the first week.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
Poor bot-voting twat still in automatic-crap-dispensing mode. Obviously. Poor poor sod. What a life of irrelevance and ignominy is this twat's self-made lot for this new year as well as the past ones. What a loser-on-the-internet-and-in-real-life it is. Pitiable.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
@rc
i have not ignored any of your references, therefore your vilification and denigration is OT and out of line
the previous attacks against you were for lack of evidence and failure to justify your libelous claims and were/are proven
THATS why you were BANNED @ sciforums/Sapo's
Go ahead, continue to downvote based on person/source rather than scientific evidence presented...and then tell us again how 'objective' you are, and how 'peer review works so well' for science publishing. Deniers
in reply and explanation for above/the post here
Hi OZGuy, Stumpy. :)
This post as well as the rest above Have been downvoted etc NOT because of the person/source, but because it lacked ANY scientific content at all and is OT

you've been banned from Sciforums or Sapo's Joint due to continual TROLLING/BAITING posts like above

PS don't bother going into another rant
it will be ignored and you will be downvoted and reported for more OT BAITING & TROLLING
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2015
Hi Stumpy. :)

Too late. The forum recalls how often I proved you're lying about me and about why I was banned from those proven troll-mod-gang run sites....which sites are living cautionary tales about precisely the problem of entrenched personal BIAS and abuses.

I was banned because I PROVED via INTERNET EXPERIMENTS the sites were troll-mod infested, run by egocenric arrogant troll twats who couldn't stand being proven wrong and their corrupt abuses exposed.

What's new in humanity and science? Twas ever thus. Censorship, abuse of power, for personal motives against all professed humanity/science ethics.

You say you read the references? Even above article?...

http://phys.org/n...ray.html

...which AGAIN proves my observations correct?

You FAIL in 'objective', Stumpy. Can you ever NOT lie anymore?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2015
PS: And Stumpy, what about these other articles, which highlight the exact same things I have been CORRECTLY observing and cautioning you all about, ie, when HUMAN personal motives/interest leads to FAILURE all along a every stage from research-to-peer-review?

http://phys.org/n...ize.html

http://phys.org/n...vor.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2015
what about these other articles
like this one? http://phys.org/n...fic.html
where you promise to save us all with your Dunning Kruger?
https://en.wikipe...r_effect
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

please, go on
demonstrate how overwhelmingly intelligent you are...
i will be recording all of the upcoming International Climate Change Conferences for posterity so that i can share them here and with the world.

As for the above BS
still baiting and trolling, i see
That is what got you banned- plus you tried to keep logging in with new profiles to TROLL/BAIT
that is not an experiment, it is a desperate attempt to keep posting
my information comes directly from the MODS and site, not from your delusional input

& ANYONE has the ability to verify that themselves

you will now post & "get in the last word"
and be reported & downvoted
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2015
Stumpy. Go read my response to you there. Stop your uninformed, self-serving indiscriminate, lying trolling; look squarely at the reality for a change; not some 'version' of it you wish to 'construct' for readers to make yourself sound 'relevant' to anything at all going on in science or humanity right now. The forum long knows you lied about me.

You're worse than religious/political nutters. Their 'excuse' is they 'follow' something/someone. A true scientist/original thinker AVOIDS 'following'; remains objective irrespective of ego/self-interest. Try it.

By continuing to deny the evidence presented to you on silver platter in those referenced articles, and instead continuing to lie about me and the reasons for my bans elsewhere, you continue to FAIL; like 'mainstream' people/peer-review has failed (according to not just my observations, but also according to the increasingly honest observations by some 'mainstreamers' themselves brave enough to finally face the truth. Try it.)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2015
Stumpy. Go read my response to you there

trolling/baiting
OT
reported

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2015
Poor poor Stump. Still dooming himself for another year of pretending his puerile personality cult crap trolling posts has any relevance to either science or humanity discourse here or anywhere where it counts. Poor poor Stump. Pity.
gettingwell
not rated yet Feb 17, 2015
This is an indication of the degree to which peer reviewers do not try to improve science, in my opinion.

http://surfaceyou...ealself/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.