Peer Review is a control process, not a purifying process.
We are being told by global warming alarmists that peer review is the definition of science. It means the worthies decide for everyone else. Science has the purpose of ending that fraud, not promoting it. Science is defined by verifiable, measured evidence, not some Nazi scheme.
Part of the problem is the assumption that truth is decreed by authority rather than something that evolves through rationality. Authority over reality is not compatible with truth. Incompetents and corrupters mix decision making authority with evaluation authority, not being aware of the difference.
Climate alarmists have been insisting that if it isn't peer reviewed it isn't science, and science must not be diluted addressing criticisms outside peer reviewed science. Many journalists accept that claim.
Where did Al Gore publish his peer reviewed science? He is teaching the kids in the schools that their carbon dioxide is killing the polar bears, while he has never studied an iota of science in his life.
We are told that 97% of the scientists agree that humans are creating global warming by putting carbon dioxide into the air. How can the other 3% be peer reviewed and wrong? If they are not peer reviewed, what relevance is their opinion?
We are told in leaked emails by Phil Jones, the chief climatologist who evaluates temperature changes, that they prevent opponents from publishing through the peer review process. If a journal publishes the material of an opponent, they get rid of the publisher.
So ignoramuses can promote any fraud as being peer reviewed, while no criticism in science is allowed, because criticism is never peer reviewed.
Peer review is often described as a validating process. There is no such thing as validating science. A validating process is in conflict with an evaluation process. specific examples by Kenneth Green
Peer review takes the form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts. If peer review were open and accountable, there might be a small chance of correcting some of the corruptions through truth and criticism; but the process is cloaked in the darkness of anonymity.
There is no place for secrecy in science after the research is done. A laboratory needs some protection from interference while it is working through the challenges, but the evaluation process cannot produce truth through secrecy and unaccountability.
Ultimately, there has to be external accountability for corruptions. In science, the public needs to be creating accountability through criticism.
There is an assumption that peer review improves publications. Supposedly, deficiencies are corrected, and wording is clarified. It's a pipe dream. Purifying is how complex results are destroyed. It's like redesigning an elm tree or improving the Edsil. It isn't an elm tree or Edsil afterwards.
Having two or three experts modify someone else's work assumes that research should be perfected before being presented to everyone else. Scientists should all be capable of doing their own evaluating. Scientists need to see the deficiencies as well as the value in research.
There is no constructive form that peer review could take. Science publications should use their professional staff, which they already have, to evaluate basic standards only. All of the rest of the limitations need to be visible to everyone.
Peer review is being portrayed in the media as the definition and determining criterion for science. Actually, it's a recent phenomenon. Only a few decades ago, editors started sending manuscripts out for assistance, as complexities increased. As the practice became common during the sixties and seventies, the names of reviewers were openly stated. During the eighties anonymity was added.
This practice started somewhat innocently and transformed into a corruption being exploited for control. To assume there is something good about it, requires total ignorance of what scientists do. Scientists build upon the work of each other making small steps, gradually improving clarity through methodology. None of it is at any end point. Peer review assumes it is all end-point fact rather than a process to be built upon. Science is more about improving procedures than drawing conclusions.
How the Editor of Science Promotes Peer ReviewIn an interview, Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of Science, and previous president of National Academy of Science, describes how he promotes the peer review scam. He said:
Peer Review Squabbles in CRU Emails Show Slop as Science Fred Pearce, The Guardian, February 2, 2010
Peer Review Locks Gate David Archibald, November 30, 2009
Peer Review and Climategate - James Delingpole and Patrick Courrielche
Bad Science Needs Good Scrutiny -Times Online, UK, January 31, 2010