 |
|
|||
|
The notes of Juan R. Gonzalez-Alvarez, concerned with the discussion about international project of the revision of the present system of scientific publications and estimation of scientific papers in the russian journal "Chemistry and Life" Comment on "Science without denominations", "Chemistry and Life" 2005, 5, 6-10.
First, I would
acknowledge to Professor Georgiy Vasilievich Lisichkin (chief of organic
catalysis laboratory, Chemical Department of Moscow State University
and editor-in-chief of the journal Journal of Russian Chemical
Society/D.I. Mendeleev) his interesting and valuable comments on
Shagaev and me project stated and explained in above article.
My partial criticism (we
agree in several points) begins with Vasilievich's phrase "The review
process is the basis of a good journal". I would prefer another more
accurate statement like "Good review process is one of the basis of a
good journal".
Time delay
The problem with time
delay of papers is a common problem in several disciplines. It is a
complex problem, which embraces the whole of the editorial process, from
initial review of manuscripts, to the physical travel of print volumes
of published journals to the different countries in the world. High
temporal delay of publications is not a problem exclusive of
low-resource journals like Vasilievich suggest, but is clearly
increased.
Would the reduction to
3-4 month of temporal delay would be sufficient for readers as appears
to suggest Vasilievich? Our project reflect the belief of many
scientists. When one asks what then is so essential about the new
electronic preprints to its users, the immediate answer is "Well, it's
obvious. It gives instant communication, without having to wait a few months for the peer review process."
Vasilievich's proposals
on "editorial" or "economic" time delay are interesting but do not
address the most dangerous aspect of time delay:
"forced" time delay of
revolutionary theories and models that contradict usual accepted
thinking. This is also a recent problem with ArXiv as recently
denunciated by Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson in Nature journal:
"Vital resource should be
open to all physicists" Nature 433, 800 (24 February 2005). A novel
form of time delay can be the original ArXiv endorsement system.
Let me use one of
Josephson's main points, "Putting control in the hands of a few can
enforce orthodoxy and stifle innovative ideas", like support of our
proposals for a new, more rational, model of scientific publication.
As Nobel Laureate J.
Steinberger had rightfully observed "new ideas are not completely easy
to accept, sometimes even by the brightest and most open of people".
Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics is legendary. Some scientific
contributions are effectively silenced and prevented from being
published for years or even decades. One of most radical cases that
I know was that of an
article that appeared in 1957 in the Journal of the American Chemical
Society, 25 years after it was initially submitted.
About reviewers
I can only partially
agree that reviewers are specially selected scientists that have highest
qualification because, sometimes, one can see from received reviewer's
reports that he/she is not a clear specialist in the topic of the paper
that you are preparing. Many scientists, referees,
and editors will agree
with me. Still one would recognize that reviewers are often
"specialists" in mainstream knowledge and, this is an important point,
review new material in the basis of that mainstream knowledge.
Studies show that, at
least in 36 occasions, future Nobel Laureates encountered resistance on
part of scientific journal editors or referees to manuscripts that dealt
with discoveries that on later date would assure them the Nobel Prize.
These important discoveries were "premature", in the
sense that they did not
fit in the common paradigms, and/or their implications could not be
connected by a series of simple logical steps to the existing scientific
knowledge. Usual peer review process fails clearly here.
Roald Hoffmann, Nobel
Laureate in Chemistry, has pointedly observed, "in the course of this
refereeing process there are incredibly irrational responses unleashed
by perfectly good and otherwise rational scientist". Would not the
standard model of scientific publication be the most
rational possible?
Our proposal advances in that way, eliminating or minimizing the obvious failures of current model.
Since Vasilievich centers
his comments in the chemical field, I would be a pleasure for me
remember to him the difficulties experienced by Henry Eyring to publish
his classic 1935 paper on the activated complex in chemical reactions
and the role played by those "selected scientists" in the delay of the
advance of chemistry.
It begins to be admitted
by an increasing number of scientists, specialists in publication and
information science, and editors that unusual status of present science
(without the sound revolutions of past, remember relativity theory or
quantum mechanics) is the direct outcome of
the rigid model of peer
review of the second middle of last century. In fact, the Nobel laureate
for physics Brian Josephson has appointed that Einstein relativistic
theory would be blocked from ArXiv if Einstein submitted it today,
simply by a question of inadequate affiliation to
academia. Previous
editor-in-chief of Nature journal, John Maddox, has said that Newton
gravitation theory would be now rejected for peer review publication
because "it was too ambitious" one. Is that, the future for science that
we desire?
Vasilievich argues that
the selection of two different reviewers in serious scientific journals
prevents any subjectivism. Let me a counterexample of why the method is
subjective; often the same (exactly the same) paper is submitted to two
different journals and in one of them
the manuscript is
rejected like wrong or inadequate whereas is accepted with complaints in
the other. If this is not subjectivism, then I do not know that can be.
Vasilievich adds, "Only
the system of careful review is the basis of good reputation of the
journal." I think that one would not mix "good reputation of the
journal" with high-quality papers or first-class science. Paul Ginsparg
(from Cornell University) one of indisputable
leaders on new models of scientific communication:
"When faculty members are
polled formally or informally regarding peer review, the response is
frequently along the lines -"Yes, of course, we need it precisely as
currently constituted because it provides a quality control system for
the literature, signaling important contributions, and hence necessary
for deciding job and grant allocations." But this conclusion relies on
two very strong implicit assumptions:
a) that the necessary signal results directly from the peer review process itself, and
b) that the signal in
question could only result from this process. The question is not
whether we still need to facilitate some form of quality control on the
literature; it is instead whether given the emergence of new technology
and dissemination methods in the past decade, is the
current implementation
of peer review still the most effective and efficient means to provide the desired signal?
Appearance in the
peer-reviewed journal literature certainly does not provide sufficient
signal [...] It is therefore both critical and timely to consider
whether modifications of existing methodology can lead to a more
functional or less costly system for research communication."
Review would be
non-anonymous by a simple question of consistency. Review is a crucial
piece of publication of new ideas in science. We cannot leave this
important piece of the mechanism in anonymous hands, especially when
anonymity is used for rejecting alternative theories. If a review report
is well done, the reviewer may be proud of his report, independently of
if he/she is correct or wrong. All scientists do errors. The idea of
that authors can do errors but referees are infallible cannot be
sustained. I would note that this bizarre idea is implicit in the
anonymous peer review process.
I would agree with
Vasilievich that the possibility for anonymous report could be
considered for some review reports, but reviewers would provide support
of his/her plea and authors would accept or reject anonymous referee
after of reading the report. For instance, if the report is well
balanced, I am sure that
many authors simply will reply it, but if there are clear signs of
"distortion" of main ideas of author's paper or a completely wrong
report, the author would claim that referee signs his/her report. This
new feature would impede well-knows cases of abuse from anonymous
referees for rejecting alternative points of view to referees own ones.
Referee could choose to
sign the report or no, but the author of the problematic paper cannot be
obligated to accept any anonymous review report. All I am saying is
based in experience with current system of publication in paper
journals. The rejecting of alternative nonstandard
ideas has been also
documented by physicists in the case of ArXiv, where erasing of
"dangerous" papers is done in an anonymous form by "administrators" of
the service.
I, as many other
scientists and studiers of topic, clearly disagree with Vasilievich idea
it is easier to publish a revolutionary paper now, in comparison with
50 years ago. I have provided abundant data and claims by well-informed
and highly respected scientists and editors in several
publications, letters,
and others in the contrary view, before this project with Shagaev. Some
of those works were available on the chemical preprint server but
unfortunately was force to close. I wait to post some of that material
in the web of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) in a
future.
A small quote would fix
the status of peer review model (Brown, Cecelia JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
54(5): 362-371, 2003):
"Challengers of the peer
review system question whether it fairly and equitably allows all
researchers to participate in the discourse of the scientific community
(Foltz, 2000). The CPS levels the playing field by providing an outlet
for novice or nontraditional chemists who have
difficulty breaking into
the established social milieu of chemistry. [...] Furthermore, posting
of nonmainstream research allows readers the chance to see new and
innovative work, which may never reach the journal literature. The
controversy about peer review may in part be quelled by
the use of e-print
servers that do not "depend exclusively on the oxygen of peer review"
(Cronin & McKim, 1996), but instead revolve around a platform of
free, open, and dynamic discussion of research."
Not only it is clearly
impossible to publish some truly revolutionary ideas in several typical
journals of physics or chemistry, moreover, even certain research
activities before publication are restricted or do not permitted by the
"mainstream". For a view on the awful status of research
in high-energy physics,
I recommend the reading of (physics/0102051). An excerpt is next provided:
"Graduate students,
post-docs and untenured junior faculty interested in physics beyond the
Standard Model are under tremendous pressures in a brutal job market to
work on the latest fad in string theory, especially if they are
interested in speculative and mathematical research. For them, the idea
of starting to work on an untested new idea that may very well fail
looks a lot like a quick route to professional suicide. Many physics
researchers do not believe in string theory but work on it anyway."
Multidisciplinary science is absent
The claim of publication
of papers devoted to any field of chemistry is interesting but it
appears to be more the typical publication of separate papers in
different fields related to that called "chemistry" that to the
publication of related papers in the style of an unified revolutionary
multidisciplinary
scientific theory like canonical science. It is very unlikely that any
actual typical journal of science can provide adequate support to the
point of real interdisciplinary research and publication. In fact, even
the current organization of science in "separated" fields is
misleading the
interesting point of that Nature is unified. Take like an example the
founding of the famous Santa Fe Institute for studies in complex
systems, with the objective of abolishing the serious problems of usual
packet research on a new, advanced concept of science research.
Why open publication and review
Like a member of
scientific community, I want know, when, how, and why a paper is
rejected/accepted, and what is the scientific basis for such one
reject/acceptation.
Vasilievich states, "one
can confidently assert that the quality of electronic journals will be
formed by the level of its reviewers (by specialists, exactly, but not
by the voting of readers as offering the project authors). The truth
isn't determined by a majority vote."
These claims are surprising for me. Next, some comments on it.
1) The quality of an
electronic repository (e.g. ArXiv) is based in the quality of
papers/preprints that it contains. Take for example, the current main
physics archive of preprints, it is considered in so high-quality that
the direct citing on top high quality journals like Physical Review is
permitted. In fact, the model is so satisfactory that many physicists
claim that rarely read usual "old" printed peer review journals. Let me
remark a very important point that suggests that our
project may be correct:
there is no formal reviewer procedure in the electronic archive of
physics works! C. Brown describes the additional concern expressed by
the editors of chemical journals with the point of that electronic
preprint was not peer reviewed, but correctly points to
the status of peer review
on other scientific fields: "perhaps chemists will begin to adopt the
proactive attitude of physicists and astronomers who are not concerned
about the lack of peer review in arXiv.org and SPRIES."
2) Instead of "vote", I
claim for minimum review/comment procedure, and that procedure,
including review reports may be open to all member of scientific
community that want review a paper. The concept of specialist is rather
subjective. I am obligated to quote now the well-known Feynman phrase
that one would often ignore to the so-called specialists. History shows
that Feynman himself suffered the cruel accuracy of this phrase in his
own body when openly claimed that violation of parity was impossible in
nature and years after that physical process was discovered in
experiment and a Nobel Prize awarded. Nobody doubt that Feynman was one
of most important physicists of 20th century, an authentic specialists
in many fields of physics, but he was simply wrong in that point.
3) We would agree that a
few "specialists" do not say the last word about the accuracy/inaccuracy
of a published paper. Specialist's view is, of course, really important
but it is not definitive and would be dangerous leave the future of
science in the hands of a few of them, when history of science sensibly
recommend to us to do the contrary. It is notorious that
almost all specialists in
physics rejected the law of conservation of energy and only after of
decades a new generation of physicists recognized the grave error of
their predecessors. There are dozens and dozens of examples from Newton
(broadly rejected by specialists) to Zewail (Nobel laureate for
chemistry 1999). Zewail recalls that many of his chemical colleagues
thought that coherence was irrelevant to chemistry. How wrong they were!
[Chem. Commun. 2002, 2185.]
Juan R. Gonzalez-Alvarez
Director and founder of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Chief of the canonical science project
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
