[GOAL] Peer review, OA, etc.

[Michael Smith]

I would not presume to talk about the value of peer review for all of
science, but for some fields it is absolutely essential. I am a
archaeologist, and we desperately need peer review to weed out papers by
two groups of authors (many of whom can write scholarly-sounding and
scholarly-looking papers). First we lunatics who would like to think
they are part of the scholarly discipline. They are into Maya prophesies
for 2012, boatloads of Egyptians who (supposedly) showed the Incas how
to mummify the dead, phony pyramids in the Balkans,  and the like. Some
of these people write books and articles that appear to be scholarly,
but are not. The second group is more insidious. These are scholars with
valid degrees who have a very non-scientific epistemology, producing
stories of the past with little plausibility. Taking a more
humanities-oriented approach, they are willing to propose
interpretations that the more scientifically-minded of us consider
baseless speculation. 

 

High-energy physics presumably has fewer lunatics and hangers-on than
archaeology, and they are probably easier to spot. We desperately need
peer review to keep some sort of sanity in our field.

 

Mike

 

Michael E. Smith, Professor

School of Human Evolution & Social Change

Arizona State University

www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9 <http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120112/46aaeb3a/attachment.html