Hollywood anti catholic bullshit needs to stop

[o_O.Q]

drkohler said:

o_O.Q said:

"They don't get sent to Einstein, Tesla or Edison"

but they are at the top of the hierarchy of respected scientists... which is what i said... i never said that they would be assessing reports

Peer review has nothing to do with Einstein or Tesla or Edison. If we take the "pig example", none of those prople would ever have seen your paper, not because they're dead, but because evolution theory was not in their area of research. A paper will always be reviewd by scientists working in the same field (or at least knowledgable in the field). If you worked in a particularly obscure sidearm of science, it might well be that you could have a good idea who the reviewers are (because there might be only a handful of scientists working in that obscure area). In general, there are enough scientists available to completely hide the reviewers from the authors. Also in general, your worst enemy/ies will not be chosen as a peer reviewer.

Peer review works with the principle that a few scientists knowledgable in the field (and have produced papers in that field) preview your paper and decide on several questions, amongst them:

a) Did we see this before?

b) Does it present something new?

c) Is the paper logically sound?

d) Are there ambiguities which have to be dealt with?

At no time will the reviewers try to reproduce your experiment(s) or complain about grammar and syntax errors. Once the paper is published, it is up to interested scientists to reproduce your experiment/thought train. If your paper is obscure or revolutionary, it can take years until you are proven right or wrong.

A Yes to a) or a No to b) will instantly reject the paper, a No to c) or Yes to d) will return the paper to you for clarifications (and following resubmittance if you still dare).

"Peer review has nothing to do with Einstein or Tesla or Edison."

i didn't say it does... this is the wider context for what i said

""There is not an order or hierarchy in the scientific community."

what scientist does the general person think of instantly when asked? einstein right? or edison or maybe tesla... how many more can they name?

does that not show that there is a hierarchy where some scientists are more widely respected than others?"

 

i agree with everything else that you said... and i never said otherwise... i was arguing against the idea that peer review is not a selective process and has no structure associated with it