Peer Review

Peer review is often considered a confusing subject, especially since it is often used in so many different ways and defined primarily by the context within which it is used. For instance, “peer review” with respect to an academic journal published article generally means that the editors of the journal have taken a paper that has been submitted to them for publication and submitted it to several selected reviewers who have specialized understandings not only in general science and scientific publication, but also within the more narrow subject area of the submitted paper. Many people mistakenly believe that any paper, which passes this journal publication review and is published must be accurate in its findings and understandings, actually, however, this is not how science works. The reviewers used by any particular journal represent a set of gatekeepers whose job is primarily to insure that the submitted paper properly and clearly explains contextual relevance of their research and findings.

This amounts to (not necessarily in this order):

(1) Properly presenting the existing orthodoxy of the scientific understandings in a particular field,
(2) Clearly explaining how your new understandings compellingly strengthen, or alter, the orthodox understandings,
(3) Explaining the rigorous methodology and compelling evidences you have performed/acquired in support of your new understandings,
(4) Discussing the weaknesses and presenting examples of potential nullification factors which might lead to a rejection of your hypothetical understandings

In more general terms, however, actual “peer review” really does not begin until after the publication of the paper in an academic journal. This is when the rest of a scientific field takes notice of a proposed new hypothetical understanding. Comments and letters to the journal and supporting and contradicting “dueling” research (papers) all play a role in determining the value and accuracy of the information in that paper and the research from which it was derived. The most common determinant of how important a paper is to shaping mainstream science understandings is how many times that paper is academically cited in subsequent academic references.

Increasingly, however, (due largely to enhanced internet connectivity/access) we have a number of discussion journals where noted researchers can pre-publish their work and stimulate a much wider open comment field discussion ahead of submitting a revised final draft for actual publication in the academic journal that sponsors the discussion journal.

An example of a recent paper pre-published in this manner is the latest Hansen et al work “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous” – http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.n...0059-2015.html

Full text pdf of paper available at - http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.n...20059-2015.pdf

While I have no problem with some ancillary discussion of the specific science and findings presented in paper, this should not be seen as a broad license to dispute or argue issues of the scientific legitimacy of climate science, AGW, or Public policy regarding either of those issues. The primary purpose of this thread, however, is more about discussion and exploration of the subject of “peer review” and what all it means in connection with science.

I would really appreciate a bit of discussion regarding this newer push for public pre-publication. Personally, I am a bit torn, because I understand the reasons and benefits of having exclusive access to your research prior to publication for both the researcher and the journal, but, especially with regard to some globally important issues (e.g. nuclear power, genetic modification, climate change, etc.), I can also see the benefit to the open and public discussion of significant findings and modifications of the orthodox science understandings in these fields.

This was, in part, inspired by many separate discussions regarding peer review in various threads over the last several years and this WAPO article: “What live peer review looks like when the fate of the planet is at stake” - http://ift.tt/1hGtBvC

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1hGtz6P