RE: [asa] Sternberg quote

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Wed Mar 28 2007 - 11:01:01 EDT

At 10:35 AM 3/28/2007, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

>My experience is that administrators want a large pool of candidates
>so that they can select the ones they want. Similarly, an editor may
>choose a large number of referees so that the editor can use
>criteria other than the quality of the work to accept or reject the
>paper. Administrators also would set a lower GPA for college
>admission so that they can consider race, ethnicity, etc. This is an
>old game. They ask for our opinions so that they can validate their
>desires and/pr agenda. ~ Moorad

@ 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.

To read the entire paper,
here. To discuss the paper,
<>click here.


"The natural human yearning for spirituality has produced in many
people __educated in secular-minded universities and enveloped in an
atmosphere of contempt for traditional religion__ a faith that we
vulgar human beings have a sacred obligation not to inflict damage on
Mother Earth."

~ Janice ..... who has a bridge to sell to any who actually believe
that the above mentalities are engaged in unbiased "peer review" and
think they can trust it.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Mar 28 11:01:47 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 28 2007 - 11:01:47 EDT