3 ms·

I didn't need to do that (contact the authors) because as it turned out other people had already done so; basically they just got stonewalled, though. And as I

I didn't need to do that (contact the authors) because as it turned out other people had already done so; basically they just got stonewalled, though. And as I recall one of them was actually a young PhD (or at least a PhD-wannabe), and the response they got back was essentially "If you value your future career in science then you shouldn't go around rocking the boat by asking questions like this!" > Just consider that a lot of people independently analyzed the data for the publications, including idealistic students without agenda, who then all made the same mistake. Yeah, you make it sound like peer-review and such actually works the way that it's usually claimed to work, which is often just not the case. I've seen enough peer-reviewed junk floating around out there over the years to know that.

kaybe 8y ago
Hm, that does indeed sound concerning. I'd still try for myself though, since tone matters a lot. There is a reason lists like this exist [0]. If you have experience you probably know some of the letters and emails professors get (special and general relativity and quantum anything are prime targets). Honest questions on the other hand get either no response (too busy) or a detailed answer. It's hard to judge without seeing the correspondance. I still believe that in aggregate peer review works, even if it fails once in a while for single cases, especially when the result is as scrutinized and as important as this. Do you have a better idea for making progress and figuring out what reality is really like? [0] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
- southern_cross 8y ago
  Yeah, I've seen that crackpot list before, and of course most of it is just too funny. But things like that are really no excuse for just blowing off serious questions about current scientific thinking, which may of course potentially point to real problems with that thinking. In other words, you can't just label something "crackpot" primarily because it's convenient to do so. As far as peer review goes, I'm trying to keep an eye on the whole "open peer review" thing, or whatever the proper name for that is. It of course has its own problems, but I haven't been particularly impressed with the current system for several decades now. And I don't think that it's really a matter of "it fails once in a while", but rather that it has problems which may be fairly pervasive. I've seen estimates that as much as 50% of what gets published these days as peer-reviewed science may be basically just fiction in the end, and I might put the percentage higher than that.

kaybe 8y ago

Hm, that does indeed sound concerning. I'd still try for myself though, since tone matters a lot. There is a reason lists like this exist [0]. If you have experience you probably know some of the letters and emails professors get (special and general relativity and quantum anything are prime targets). Honest questions on the other hand get either no response (too busy) or a detailed answer. It's hard to judge without seeing the correspondance. I still believe that in aggregate peer review works, even if it fails once in a while for single cases, especially when the result is as scrutinized and as important as this. Do you have a better idea for making progress and figuring out what reality is really like? [0] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

southern_cross 8y ago
Yeah, I've seen that crackpot list before, and of course most of it is just too funny. But things like that are really no excuse for just blowing off serious questions about current scientific thinking, which may of course potentially point to real problems with that thinking. In other words, you can't just label something "crackpot" primarily because it's convenient to do so. As far as peer review goes, I'm trying to keep an eye on the whole "open peer review" thing, or whatever the proper name for that is. It of course has its own problems, but I haven't been particularly impressed with the current system for several decades now. And I don't think that it's really a matter of "it fails once in a while", but rather that it has problems which may be fairly pervasive. I've seen estimates that as much as 50% of what gets published these days as peer-reviewed science may be basically just fiction in the end, and I might put the percentage higher than that.