Peer Review

[QuarkHead]

Well, well, I never thought I would up opening here! But there has been a lot of talk about the so-called "peer review process", so I thought I would try to explain how it works.

(BTW I feel qualified to do this, as I have been on both the delivery side and the recipient side).

So. Cranks routinely claim there is no point in submitting their wonderful insights for peer review since "established science", within that process, immediately closes ranks to exclude these revolutionary ideas.

I am here to tell you that the reality could scarcely be more different. Like I said, I have refereed a modest number of papers for international journals, and all those I submitted were subject to this process.

It works like this: A is asked to review a submission by B because he is known to work in the same area. Now A and B might regularly go for a beer together, but nonetheless they are still scientific rivals. So the reviewer, A, will do his very best to ensure that B's submission is rejected. Anonymity guarantees that B never knows that his friend A has shafted him. Moreover, all journals like to keep their status high, and so encourage rejection on even the flimsiest grounds.

On the other hand, the reviewer cannot go too far by making arbitrary or even wrong criticism, as that would damage his own own credibility as an impartial referee, and call into question his own scientific ability.

So it all balances out, more or less. In other words, the claim that "established science", via the review process, is a cosy coterie of self-supporting individuals is entirely false.

On the third hand, practising scientists, especially as they get on in years, often feel that all the important work has been done in their subject, and all that they now read is just polishing the stone.

Imagine the intellectual rejuvenation of these old farts when they realize, as a result of reading a revolutionary peer reviewed paper, however reluctantly the reviewers may have passed it, that there is still work to be done, and still some point in taking on PhD students and post-docs.

So submit to peer review if you dare......

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I think it might not be a bad idea to have some semblance of an FAQ in regards to the scientific method, the place peer review has in it and what one would be expected to do in order to have any chance of passing peer review (ie justifications, clear explanations etc). I've had to explain those things so many times to so many people it would definitely save time and not lead to threads like Uno Hoo's where he asks about how the community goes about scrutinising and accepting work.

 

[BertBonsai]

On the other hand, the reviewer cannot go too far by making arbitrary or even wrong criticism, as that would damage his own own credibility as an impartial referee, and call into question his own scientific ability.

Well, certain types of ideas won't get to a reviewer at all. There's no risk to a journal in summarily dismissing anything too far from the mainstream, or deemed too unlikely to be valid based on the editors' preconceived notions. They'll read only the title or abstract. Journal editors will admit this too. They have complete freedom to be choosy, even for illogical reasons, and they exercise that.

For example, no major journal today is going to consider anything that challenges general relativity, even though that theory makes some bold claims that haven't been experimentally confirmed (e.g. black holes). That's true regardless what logical or mathematical argument a paper might make for a problem in that theory. Anyone who challenges that theory is automatically considered to be a crackpot. An unscientific closing of the ranks certainly happens in some cases.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

For example, no major journal today is going to consider anything that challenges general relativity, even though that theory makes some bold claims that haven't been experimentally confirmed (e.g. black holes).

No, its true that no major journal today is going to consider anything that challenges general relativity unless the analysis is in depth, demonstrates the author is extremely familiar with GR, has repeatable methodical experimental results which show a firm statistically significant result in contradiction of GR, whose prediction for said experiment is also covered in depth.

A theory predicting something we haven't yet tested is not a negative. You're basically arguing against a theory being able to predict things! A proposed model should be able to explain all relevant phenomena already observed but its a plus if it can also then be used to formulate new predictions, as this then guides experimentalists in what they might wish to look at. GR predicted light deflection by the Sun so someone went out and did the observations. GR predicted red shifting in photons moving up against gravity, someone went and measured it. GR predicted frame dragging, someone built Gravity Probe B. Predicting things not yet observed is a sign the model's author (or authors) is doing more than just 'curve fitting', ie coming up with something whose primary motivation is to fit known results. Yes, some of GR's predictions have yet to be confirmed or even tested in detail but this is not a negative against it. You can always come up with scenarios where a given model might apply but which we haven't or can't test. All of GR's predictions we can test have been tested and found to be correct. Red shifting, time dilation, frame dragging, cosmology, orbital precessions, light deflection. Any one of them could invalidate GR and thus far none of them have. And as for black holes we have observed objects which match all the expected properties of black holes, such as Cygnus X-1 or the centres of most (if not all) galaxies.

The fact you are laughed at when you make claims of having some amazing result because of a dream you had, that you're told you're not doing anything viable, is not because of some conspiracy of silence but because you have produced nothing of value. Give me 1, just 1, phenomenon you can model with the stuff you 'dreamt' about accurately. Can you predict the precession of Mercury's orbit? Can you predict the variation in clock timings for GPS satellites? Can you even tell me how far a ball thrown from a height of 2 metres at 30 degrees to the horizontal at 30m/s takes to hit the ground? GR can, all three of them. You provide nothing to justify your claims and then you whine when you're rejected by scientists. If you want to be taken seriously by scientists your work has to meet basic standards for methodology, evidence, justification, clarity and honesty. But it doesn't.

It always amazes me how cranks come to science forums to pitch their claims and then get upset when someone points out their work fails to be good science or even science at all. But then perhaps if you spent some time reading up about the scientific method you'd know more about it than you're getting from your dreams.

 

[BertBonsai]

No, its true that no major journal today is going to consider anything that challenges general relativity unless the analysis is in depth, demonstrates the author is extremely familiar with GR, has repeatable methodical experimental results which show a firm statistically significant result in contradiction of GR, whose prediction for said experiment is also covered in depth.

No major journal today is going to consider anything that challenges general relativity period. Well maybe Hawking could do it but I doubt it.

Your reasoning is illogical there too. When GR was published there was only one existing observation that Newton didn’t predict whereas GR did, the anomalous perihelion of Mercury. But even that wouldn’t have been needed for GR to be publishable. Even without the Mercury observation, GR made a strong case that it was better than Newton's theory of gravity.

Scientifically speaking, a paper that challenges GR (or any other generally accepted theory) need only show logical proof of invalidity of the other theory. No replacement theory or overall demonstration of understanding of the generally accepted theory is needed. As a hypothetical example, showing a divide-by-zero error would be sufficient. But no major journal today would read past the abstract on a paper purportedly showing invalidity of GR, even assuming the paper is correct and otherwise perfect.

You're basically arguing against a theory being able to predict things!

No, you just assumed that. It's fine for GR (or any theory) to predict things, including things that haven't been experimentally confirmed. What isn't scientific is when journals declare a theory sacrosanct even where it's not experimentally confirmed. No one can argue in a journal against the validity of black holes now, for example, even though they aren't experimentally confirmed and therefore could be the result of a problem in the theory. Their assumed validity is locked in stone.

And as for black holes we have observed objects which match all the expected properties of black holes, such as Cygnus X-1 or the centres of most (if not all) galaxies.

Every such observation depends on the validity of GR. They’re plugging values from those observations into the theory to see if it predicts a black hole. That’s okay, but it’s not confirmation by any stretch of reason. It's probably true though that 98% of physics grads today erroneously believe that black holes are experimentally confirmed.

The fact you are laughed at when you make claims of having some amazing result because of a dream you had, that you're told you're not doing anything viable, is not because of some conspiracy of silence but because you have produced nothing of value.

What dream? Don’t pollute this thread with your crap. Go to the appropriate thread.

It always amazes me how cranks come to science forums to pitch their claims and then get upset when someone points out their work fails to be good science or even science at all. But then perhaps if you spent some time reading up about the scientific method you'd know more about it than you're getting from your dreams.

Thanks for helping make my case for me.

I once had a discussion with the editor of a major physics journal, easily one of the top 3, and nothing to do with a submission. Went like this:

Me: “blah blah relativity blah”
Editor: It always amazes me how cranks come to journals to pitch their claims… If you spent some time reading up about the scientific method you'd know more about…
Me: Uh, the whole thing you responded to was a direct quote from the authors of the authoritative book Gravitation, as I noted.
Editor: <end of discussion>

Who can blame them really? They get bombarded with junk. So they'd become biased against new ideas and the babies would get thrown out with the bath water. I’m just pointing out that peer review isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It may in fact do more harm than good to science. One thing’s for sure, science did fine without it.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

No major journal today is going to consider anything that challenges general relativity period. Well maybe Hawking could do it but I doubt it.

And you're basing this on your extensive experience in the research community? Oh wait, you don't have any. The fact is cranks get shot down because they fail to provide even basic evidence and methodology for their claims. But rather than accepting its their fault they all cry "Conspiracy!!". Take a little responsibility and accept that its not everyone else's fault you're crap at science its yours.

Your reasoning is illogical there too. When GR was published there was only one existing observation that Newton didn’t predict whereas GR did, the anomalous perihelion of Mercury. But even that wouldn’t have been needed for GR to be publishable. Even without the Mercury observation, GR made a strong case that it was better than Newton's theory of gravity.

When there's only a little bit of experimental data which can be used to evaluate two different models then the new proposed one needs to spend more time explaining why its conceptually better and likely to be worthy of more investigation, which Einstein did. You're arguing against yourself here, seeing as you are aware of the way in which GR was presented in comparison to Newtonian gravity and yet you haven't provided similar comparisons between your own claims and GR. You know where the bar is and yet you made no attempt to reach it!

Scientifically speaking, a paper that challenges GR (or any other generally accepted theory) need only show logical proof of invalidity of the other theory. No replacement theory or overall demonstration of understanding of the generally accepted theory is needed. As a hypothetical example, showing a divide-by-zero error would be sufficient. But no major journal today would read past the abstract on a paper purportedly showing invalidity of GR, even assuming the paper is correct and otherwise perfect.

True, to kill a theory you do not need to replace it. I've yet to see a crank who claims SR or GR is inconsistent show they have even university level understanding of either. Look at Jack and MotorDaddy, they make claims about things they have no understanding of and then refuse to accept they are in over their heads.

GR is a difficult theory to level, even for those people who've spent several years doing maths or physics at university. It's not taught till 3rd or commonly 4th year, if to undergraduates at all. And even after doing the courses in an undergraduate degree you're a long long long way from having any real intuitive grasp of the underlying principles, you're still mostly in the "Shut up and calculate" stage. Not till you're doing research do you enter into the more conceptual understanding stage. And I say that having done research into curved space-time and knowing plenty of others who have done specifically GR research. I'm 8 years into university doing mathematical physics and I'd not dare go toe to toe with the majority of GR researchers and yet all the cranks online, whose experience with GR amounts to reading Wikipedia for 20 minutes, think they spot something new and novel. Of course one might ask oneself how they know this when they haven't read any books on relativity to find out what 'new and novel' results are actually in chapter 1 of an introductory textbook.....

To show there's some fundamental flaw in SR you're basically going to have to prove geometry is wrong. Not just non-Euclidean geometry but Euclidean geometry too. GR is the application of Riemannian geometry to physics. The only points where the maths and physics diverge are when you consider space-times with singularities. Physically that's not right but mathematically they are quite interesting. You aren't going to show GR is inconsistent with itself by doing some convoluted clock on a rocket on roller skates carrying a torch while spinning thought experiment. When you stripe down such experiments to their fundamentals you're just asking about the mathematical structure of the symmetries of space-time, which are not only looked at by physicists but also mathematicians and their consistency is well established in mathematics.

You'll kill SR or GR not by showing a mathematical inconsistency but by showing they fail to predict the correct result for some experiment. And this means you'll need to do some experiments. I've yet to come across a crank who does experiments.

What isn't scientific is when journals declare a theory sacrosanct even where it's not experimentally confirmed. No one can argue in a journal against the validity of black holes now, for example, even though they aren't experimentally confirmed and therefore could be the result of a problem in the theory. Their assumed validity is locked in stone.

And you are assuming that. There's plenty of observational evidence for black holes. You seem to be under the impression that journals just accept things if they were predicted long enough ago. No, they accept things as good models when there's plenty of evidence to support them. If you do a billion different experiments and GR passes all of them then you haven't confirmed its right but you have confirmed it is extremely close to right for a wide range of phenomena. This gives you confidence that although you might not be able to test other predictions at present you feel they are worth heeding. But no one declares them taken for granted and not worthy of being tested when the ability arises.

Every such observation depends on the validity of GR. They’re plugging values from those observations into the theory to see if it predicts a black hole. That’s okay, but it’s not confirmation by any stretch of reason. It's probably true though that 98% of physics grads today erroneously believe that black holes are experimentally confirmed.

And 87% of statistics are made up on the spot, 46% of people know that. The objects seen in systems like Cygnus X-1 have their mass measured by the motion of their partner, their size measured by the accretion disks and that lets you know if you've got what GR would consider to be a black hole, ie a mass within its Schwarzchild radius. The specific behaviour of the accretion disk, if GR is right, can then be modelled and compared with observation. This is a test of GR in regards to black holes. If we can literally see the object then its not a black hole and GR fails. If we can't but the radius is wrong for the mass then GR fails. If the radius matches the mass prediction then GR's Schwarzchild prediction is vindicated. The specific dynamics of the accretion disk and the radiation coming off it depends an enormous amount on subtle things like the charge and rotation of the black hole (so its not really Schwarzchild, its as Kerr-Newman black hole) which then test models of accretion disks, relativity, magnetohydrodynamics/plasma physics and cosmology. The more models you have to combine the more likely your prediction will differ from observation as you're introducing more possibly not right components. When the observation matches prediction then you get an enormous vindication of the accuracy of all the models. The behaviour of such systems and the cores of galaxies are in line with black hole models. Yes, you can argue this doesn't prove black holes exist but then you can argue that any indirect model can be explained by anything else, such as gravity really being invisible fairies which push people towards the Earth. Measuring the GPS time dilation doesn't disprove this but I doubt many people take it seriously.

What dream? Don’t pollute this thread with your crap. Go to the appropriate thread.

Did you forget this thread? I guess that confirmed my suspicion you simply made up an excuse to post your BS here, a way to get initial attention, and now you're forgetting your lie and contradicting yourself. That's the problem with being a crank, you have to work to keep your nonsense consistent.

It became pretty clear you weren't some vaguely interested person who believed his dreams, you were someone who put in effort coming up with nonsense and wanted people to look at it. The chip on your shoulder about the scientific community and peer review demonstrated that.

I once had a discussion with the editor of a major physics journal, easily one of the top 3, and nothing to do with a submission. Went like this:

Me: “blah blah relativity blah”
Editor: It always amazes me how cranks come to journals to pitch their claims… If you spent some time reading up about the scientific method you'd know more about…
Me: Uh, the whole thing you responded to was a direct quote from the authors of the authoritative book Gravitation, as I noted.
Editor: <end of discussion>

You'll forgive me if I don't consider your 'paraphrasing' as worth listening to. If you provide the entire conversation maybe I'll listen but its also my experience that when a nut paraphrases someone it often comes out the opposite to how it went in.

Besides, even if journals rejected things like that this does nothing to detract from the fact your work is junk. You're doing the common thing of attacking the review process rather than realising your work fails to meet any standards of the review processes. Even if the review process gave serious unbiased consideration to all submitted work there would still be a minimal level of quality and you fail to meet it. No amount of lobbying for unbiased journals will remove that.

Who can blame them really? They get bombarded with junk. So they'd become biased against new ideas and the babies would get thrown out with the bath water. I’m just pointing out that peer review isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It may in fact do more harm than good to science. One thing’s for sure, science did fine without it.

So you accept they are bombarded with junk. Now if you only realised your work is junk maybe you'd make some progress.

 

[jmpet]

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[funkstar]

Anyone who challenges that theory is automatically considered to be a crackpot. An unscientific closing of the ranks certainly happens in some cases.

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark, here: You've never actually worked as a scientist, correct? You've never published a result in any proper scientific forum, correct?

The conspiracy gambit is a dead give-away that you're, well, a crank.

 

[BertBonsai]

You're arguing against yourself here, seeing as you are aware of the way in which GR was presented in comparison to Newtonian gravity and yet you haven't provided similar comparisons between your own claims and GR. You know where the bar is and yet you made no attempt to reach it!

I haven't made any claim against GR. Am I required to do that to discuss the topic of peer review?

To show there's some fundamental flaw in SR you're basically going to have to prove geometry is wrong.

I haven't made any claim against SR either. Not here or in another thread.

You'll kill SR or GR not by showing a mathematical inconsistency but by showing they fail to predict the correct result for some experiment.

No, showing a mathematical or logical inconsistency will kill SR or GR, just as it would kill any theory.

There's plenty of observational evidence for black holes.

There's evidence, but none that confirms the existence of black holes without assuming that GR is valid.

The objects seen in systems like Cygnus X-1 have their mass measured by the motion of their partner, their size measured by the accretion disks and that lets you know if you've got what GR would consider to be a black hole, ie a mass within its Schwarzchild radius.

That's right. In other words the conclusion of "black hole exists" depends on the validity of GR.

The specific behaviour of the accretion disk, if GR is right, can then be modelled and compared with observation. This is a test of GR in regards to black holes.

The test doesn't confirm without doubt that black holes exist. The test says only that a black hole exists if GR is right.

If the radius matches the mass prediction then GR's Schwarzchild prediction is vindicated.

No, you can't vindicate a theory's prediction by plugging values into the theory to see the prediction. You've contradicted yourself. First you say "if GR is right", which is correct, then you illogically jump to your opposite conclusion here.

Yes, you can argue this doesn't prove black holes exist but then you can argue that any indirect model can be explained by anything else, such as gravity really being invisible fairies which push people towards the Earth.

Huh? I can argue this doesn't prove black holes exist period. It doesn't matter what ramifications that has for science.

Did you forget this thread?

Another thread is irrelevant here. Learn how to stick to a topic.

That's the problem with being a crank, you have to work to keep your nonsense consistent.

I'm the scientist here. You're the one making a faith-based McCarthy-style argument.

You'll forgive me if I don't consider your 'paraphrasing' as worth listening to. If you provide the entire conversation maybe I'll listen but its also my experience that when a nut paraphrases someone it often comes out the opposite to how it went in.

I'll give you one exactly, from one of the top 3 physics journals:

Me: Does your journal consider arguments against general relativity?
Editor (exact words, copy & paste): No. Considering the General Theory of Relativity, it is as well-proven and ground part of science as Classical Mechanics is. These matters are supported by so many experiments so that neither Classical Mechanics nor the General Theory of Relativity can be flawed or cancelled.

Besides, even if journals rejected things like that this does nothing to detract from the fact your work is junk.

Wrong thread. All your arguments were refuted in the other thread. If you have something else to claim there, do it there.

You're doing the common thing of attacking the review process rather than realising your work fails to meet any standards of the review processes.

What I've said about peer review here stands by itself. Most of your comments have supported my argument.

Even if the review process gave serious unbiased consideration to all submitted work there would still be a minimal level of quality and you fail to meet it.

Says the one who thinks that showing inconsistency within a theory isn't good enough to kill the theory. Your "science" isn't scientific.

I don't think the review process should give unbiased consideration to all submitted work, either. Science is a popularity contest, and that's all it can really be, given human nature. There's a well-known quote about that, I'm too lazy to look it up but it's something about how new valid science isn't adopted until the old generation of scientists have died.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I haven't made any claim against GR. Am I required to do that to discuss the topic of peer review?

Your other thread about your 'dreams' suggested alternative solutions to various high level relativity related problems. And you obviously don't know GR and so I doubt you're going to come out as an avid supporter of it.

No, showing a mathematical or logical inconsistency will kill SR or GR, just as it would kill any theory.

I didn't say otherwise. If you bothered to read what I said you'd see I explained why we know them to be mathematically consistent. The issue is whether they actually reflect the way the universe is.

There's evidence, but none that confirms the existence of black holes without assuming that GR is valid.

Given what we know about the nature of light GR is the only gravitational model with anything close to experimental testing which predicts black holes.

That's right. In other words the conclusion of "black hole exists" depends on the validity of GR.

And the multitude of different predictions of GR have been tested to the limits of our technology. You won't find physicists saying, when you press them, "GR is undoubtedly the way gravity works", you'll find they say things like "GR represents an experimentally tested model for non-quantum gravitational forces which is extremely accurate". The fact it is made use of everyday by people's route finders is simply testiment to it being a good way to view gravity on normal scales. I doubt you'll find many, if any, who believe its accurate on quantum scales. I don't believe it is but I do believe any quantum gravity model must have GR as an effective theory. Feel free to look up what an 'effective theory' is.

The test doesn't confirm without doubt that black holes exist. The test says only that a black hole exists if GR is right.

And you can say that about any phenomenon you don't observe directly. Hell, if you want to go to the extreme you can't prove anything really exists since you have to make assumptions like "We can trust our senses". There's a difference between physics, metaphysics and philosophy. You aren't providing any new arguments. I know you might think you are but that's only because you're so unfamiliar with, and ignorant of, preexisting knowledge in science.

No, you can't vindicate a theory's prediction by plugging values into the theory to see the prediction. You've contradicted yourself. First you say "if GR is right", which is correct, then you illogically jump to your opposite conclusion here.

This is why I questioned your paraphrasing of the discussion with a physicist you claimed to have, you can't even paraphrase our discussion to me properly without inserting your own bias and misunderstandings.

Huh? I can argue this doesn't prove black holes exist period. It doesn't matter what ramifications that has for science.

And I can argue nothing exists other than myself (ie my conciousness) since I only have direct experience of that, everything else can be argued over. The question of how fruitful such argument is and its ramifications for physics and the scientific method is another thing.

I'm the scientist here. You're the one making a faith-based McCarthy-style argument.

And how exactly are you a scientist? Explain precisely how you match a particular definition you're working with. Do you have extensive knowledge of experimental results and previous ideas? Obviously not. Do you have sufficient experimental or theoretical tools/skills/knowledge to engage in viable scientific work following the scientific method? I doubt it. Do you have work which has passed peer review by the scientific community and which has actually contributed to said community and the sum of its scientific knowledge? Are you employed to do novel scientific work, either practical or intellectual? Have you ever been employed in that capacity? Given your naivity of the scientific method, both academic and corporate, I doubt it.

I have got experience and knowledge of previous work, experimental and theoretical, in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. I do have qualifications in it. I have been employed to do research in it in academia. I have work which has passed peer review and been used by others, aka publications. I have taught others in an official paid capacity by an academic institution. I am employed in the realm of mathematics and physics research for the purposes of industrial and corporate applications. Seriously, you want to go down this route you're doing to fail. Or rather, you have.

I'll give you one exactly, from one of the top 3 physics journals:

Me: Does your journal consider arguments against general relativity?
Editor (exact words, copy & paste): No. Considering the General Theory of Relativity, it is as well-proven and ground part of science as Classical Mechanics is. These matters are supported by so many experiments so that neither Classical Mechanics nor the General Theory of Relativity can be flawed or cancelled.

Which journal? I ask because I question whether anyone editing a high level journal would say such a thing given classical mechanics was known to be wrong 100 years ago (if you test deep enough) and from that came quantum mechanics and relativity.

And the attitude of the journal is immaterial given you've presented nothing which in any way would pass evren unbiased peer review.

Says the one who thinks that showing inconsistency within a theory isn't good enough to kill the theory. Your "science" isn't scientific.

Well done on failing to grasp my point. I never said that showing a mathematical inconsistency isn't enough, I said you aren't going to find them in SR or GR since they are the physics application of extremely well understood mathematical areas. Riemannian geometry and Lie theory make up two of the largest areas in mathematics research (partly because they are known to have such massive physics applications). A person could read from dawn till dusk their entire career and not read all that is covered by those areas. Your naivety about the interconnections between maths and physics and the mathematical structures of common physics models is not a justification for your point of view.

I don't think the review process should give unbiased consideration to all submitted work, either. Science is a popularity contest, and that's all it can really be, given human nature. There's a well-known quote about that, I'm too lazy to look it up but it's something about how new valid science isn't adopted until the old generation of scientists have died.

Yes and for every theory will need 25 years for the old guard to die off and become mainstream there's 9,999 which are incorrect ignorant crap. Every crank think's they're that 1 in 10,000. I've yet to see one who can even pass peer review. Care to prove me wrong?

 

[funkstar]

Ah, fuck it.

Dream boy is obviouly just another Jack_ - not worth the effort.

 

[BertBonsai]

Which journal? I ask because I question whether anyone editing a high level journal would say such a thing given classical mechanics was known to be wrong 100 years ago (if you test deep enough) and from that came quantum mechanics and relativity.

Can't say, to keep the email in confidence. Every major journal gives a highly unscientific response to that question though. It's an experiment that anyone can repeat.

And you can say that about any phenomenon you don't observe directly.

Sure. It doesn't change my point though, which is that journals illogically treat black holes (and GR in general) as sacrosanct.

And the attitude of the journal is immaterial given you've presented nothing which in any way would pass evren unbiased peer review.

That's a non sequitur.

I never said that showing a mathematical inconsistency isn't enough, I said you aren't going to find them in SR or GR since they are the physics application of extremely well understood mathematical areas.

OK, yes, I misunderstood your point. That's a common but false conclusion about GR. The theory is more than what you've assumed it is.

Are you employed to do novel scientific work, either practical or intellectual? Have you ever been employed in that capacity? Given your naivity of the scientific method, both academic and corporate, I doubt it.

Did Bill Gates go to business school? Or was he a dropout? Your thought here is a "closing of the ranks" mentioned in the OP, and goes directly against the scientific method.

Yes and for every theory will need 25 years for the old guard to die off and become mainstream there's 9,999 which are incorrect ignorant crap. Every crank think's they're that 1 in 10,000. I've yet to see one who can even pass peer review. Care to prove me wrong?

My point here is that peer review isn't all it's cracked up to be. I've made that point. So an inability to pass peer review wouldn't prove anything about my work. Journals aren't fully scientific. They show similar if not worse illogic to you've shown here, as is their right, and to be expected, given human nature.

 

[GeoffP]

The solution is relatively simple: use input from peer reviewers for illumination, rather than as a crutch, as Disraeli or Twain might have said.

 

[funkstar]

That's too rich to go uncommented.

To wit:

My point here is that peer review isn't all it's cracked up to be.

How would you know? Have you ever been involved in it? Have you ever been employed as a scientist? Have you ever published any scientific work in reputable outlets? Have you ever presented your work to other scientists in a formal (or even informal) setting such as a conference, seminar, workshop or meeting? Have you ever been asked to review a paper?

I've made that point.

But you've utterly failed to justify it - because you don't actually know what peer review is.

Trust me, if you cannot even get past the editor, your best bet is to try another journal. If you keep failing at this, what usually happens is that you take a good hard look at your work and discard it. You don't bring the whole peer review system into question unless you're breathtakingly arrogant.

So an inability to pass peer review wouldn't prove anything about my work.

Of course, it would! It would show that scientists with expertise in the area do not consider your work very good, or even flat our wrong. That's not nothing - that's fairly damning for your work. But, of course, like almost all crackpots, you're not in the race. In fact, you fail to even get out of the gate - your work is so bad the editor will not waste his reviewers' precious time on it!

Now, how could that possibly not say anything about your work?

Journals aren't fully scientific. They show similar if not worse illogic to you've shown here, as is their right, and to be expected, given human nature.

Keep your pocket psychology under wraps - it's cringeworthy to see you keep embarrassing yourself, and insulting to those here who are actually involved in science for a living.

 

[BertBonsai]

How would you know?

Already answered above. I asked them each a question whose answer tells me whether they're fully scientific.

Trust me, if you cannot even get past the editor, your best bet is to try another journal. If you keep failing at this, what usually happens is that you take a good hard look at your work and discard it.

Every major physics journal failed my test. All were found to be unscientific. There was no work of mine to take a good hard look at. The test involved a question, not a paper.

Of course, it would! It would show that scientists with expertise in the area do not consider your work very good, or even flat our wrong. That's not nothing - that's fairly damning for your work.

No, that's a false conclusion; it's not damning of my work. For one thing they never saw my work. For another, it could be that they're all unscientific.

Now, how could that possibly not say anything about your work?

IMO, based on my test, journals are not interested (and indeed are vehemently against) anything that would make them look stupid or threaten their careers. Hypothetically, the knowledge that GR isn't valid, for example, would upset all that they've learned and agreed to. It would also put into play $millions in grant money and careers. (Like, you may not need that $100 million telescope to search for black holes, and the staff to run it, if black holes were predicted only because of a mistake in the theory.) That's why they give a highly unscientific response to my question.

 

[GeoffP]

I've peer reviewed and been reviewed, many, many times.

The fact of the matter is that peer review is flawed in two ways: i) cliques, who may resent (or elevate) people breaking into their profession, ii) incapacity of the reviewer. I'm sure Herc has his reasons for thinking so, but about 20% of the time the reviewer appears to have no concrete understanding of at least some of the elements of the work. I'll never forget the time that a reviewer wrote that he/she didn't understand what was meant by "sire effects". There's another, less frequent problem: iii) outright intellectual theft. I once submitted an article to Genetica with three novel concepts. They refused it on grounds that one of the reviewers didn't like it. That reviewer then lifted those three concepts - in the order they occurred - and used them in his own submission a year later. He was then stupid - or bold, although I've heard it's the former - enough for me to trick him into admitting this to at a conference later. Wrote the journal; nothing could be done. The current supervisor - and the old ones - refused to help. Why? Politics.

This doesn't mean that all peer review is flawed, or that it serves no function. It does. But that function may often be twofold.

As in all biology, there are modifiers.

 

[BertBonsai]

Good post Geoff. Maybe you could copyright your work first; this can be done online in U.S. for ~$35. Then, if someone steals the work, sue them and the journal too.

Here's a paper about peer review:

Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy? by Frank J. Tipler

Abstract- The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a "peer" reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus's heliocentric system, Galileo's mechanics, Newton's grand synthesis -- these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors' friends. Even Darwin never submitted his idea of evolution driven by natural selection to a journal to be judged by "impartial" referees. Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin's friends. And Darwin's article was completely ignored. Instead, Darwin made his ideas known to his peers and to the world at large through a popular book: On the Origin of Species. I shall argue that prior to the Second World War the refereeing process, even where it existed, had very little effect on the publication of novel ideas, at least in the field of physics. But in the last several decades, many outstanding physicists have complained that their best ideas -- the very ideas that brought them fame -- were rejected by the refereed journals. Thus, prior to the Second World War, the refereeing process worked primarily to eliminate crackpot papers. Today, the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. I shall offer evidence that "peer" review is NOT peer review: the referee is quite often not as intellectually able as the author whose work he judges. We have pygmies standing in judgment on giants. I shall offer suggestions on ways to correct this problem, which, if continued, may seriously impede, if not stop, the advance of science.

Must be junk if it wasn't peer-reviewed. Critics claim sour grapes because Tipler supports intelligent design. Doesn't change his facts though.

Also:

Review queries usefulness of peer review

After analysing 135 studies to measure the effects of peer review, the reviewers concluded: "At present, there is little empirical evidence to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research, despite its widespread use and costs. A large, well-funded programme of research on the effects of editorial peer review is needed."

The reviewers are keen to stress that lack of evidence that peer-review works is not the same as evidence that it doesn't work. They emphasize, for example, that the system does make papers more readable and may improve the general quality of reporting.

But the conclusions add to the growing debate among editors of leading medical and scientific journals over whether existing peer review is in fact damaging, rather than enhancing, the credibility of research.

Some of the comments in this thread are interesting too.

 

[GeoffP]

I don't support intelligent design either, but I do agree that the massively altering memes described have gone largely without peer review. One hopes that peer review begets plausibility; this is probably largely true, but not uniformly true.

 

[funkstar]

Good post Geoff. Maybe you could copyright your work first; this can be done online in U.S. for ~$35. Then, if someone steals the work, sue them and the journal too.

Plagiarism isn't copyright infringement.

Anyway, peer review is obviously not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than no review at all. You can still do it the old-fashioned way and publish it in a non-refereed medium if you like, but going through an outlet with peer reivew can save you from considerable embarrassment.

In any case, imperfection of the peer review system does not translate to increased credibility for the validity of your claims.

 

[BertBonsai]

Plagiarism isn't copyright infringement.

As that link says, "... both terms may apply to a particular act ...". Suing would be justified.

Anyway, peer review is obviously not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than no review at all.

Can you prove that? The research I quoted above questions that.

You can still do it the old-fashioned way and publish it in a non-refereed medium if you like, but going through an outlet with peer reivew can save you from considerable embarrassment.

The criticism there looks like sour grapes to me. The Mona Lisa can be created by a very simple computer algorithm. Would it be Wolfram's fault if most scientists didn't grasp that?

In any case, imperfection of the peer review system does not translate to increased credibility for the validity of your claims.

Red herring. I didn't suggest otherwise.

Looking at all the false assumptions you've made in this forum, I'm sure if you were made editor of a major journal you'd summarily dismiss any revolutionary valid idea that came across your screen. From what I've read and seen for myself, the reality is no better than that.