Comment on Science without denominations,
Chemistry and Life 2005, 5, 610.
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 Vasilievichs 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.
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.
Vasilievichs
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 Josephsons 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.
Einsteins 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.
I can only
partially agree that reviewers are specially selected scientists that have
highest qualification because, sometimes, one can see from received reviewers
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 authors 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):
362371, 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.
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.
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 isnt
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. Specialists 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.
González-Álvarez
Director
and founder of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Chief of
the canonical science project
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com
http://canonical.chemicalforums.com