4 ms·

Einstein’s response to the anonymous reviewers’ critical comments: “Dear Sir, We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not aut

Einstein’s response to the anonymous reviewers’ critical comments: “Dear Sir, We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reason to address the—in any case erroneous—comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere. Respectfully, P.S. Mr. Rosen, who has left for the Soviet Union, has authorized me to represent him in this matter.” Apparently the formal process of peer reviewing wasn’t a thing until then.

shishy 5y ago
Yeah back then if an expert in the field said it was worth publishing, even if it was their paper, the editor usually complied. I think the more formal peer review became a thing as editors couldn't keep up with the pace of new publications [1]. 1. https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-historical-perspective/ https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-histo...
sva_ 5y ago
> The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process,[15] began to involve external reviewers in the mid-19th-century,[16] and did not become commonplace until the mid-20th-century.[17] > While some medical journals started to systematically appoint external reviewers, it is only since the middle of the 20th century that this practice has spread widely and that external reviewers have been given some visibility within academic journals, including being thanked by authors and editors.[18][22] A 2003 editorial in Nature stated that, in the early 20th century, "the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas."[23] Nature itself instituted formal peer review only in 1967.[24] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
BeetleB 5y ago
Michael Nielsen has a good article on it: https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific...
belter 5y ago
The peer review process as known today only took off from the second part of the 20th century, but the article also says: "...On 30 July, Tate replied that he regretted Einstein’s decision to withdraw the paper, but stated that he would not set aside the journal’s review procedure..." What seems to imply the peer reviewing process was very much already in place since the early 1920-30's at least for the Physical Review. Also according to historical record:[1] "...We know that by the 1930s, peer review at the journal was more established. Ledger pages from the time contain the same basic information that we now store in our computer: date of receipt, date sent to a reviewer, date returned, date published or rejected. From these, we see that many papers were sent out for expert evaluation, but also that in many cases, the expert assigned to a manuscript was the Editor, John Tate. We also learn that many papers had no referee assigned to them, and that some of these were accepted and some were rejected. Thus during this period, peer review was growing and making a larger contribution, but decisions were still often made by the editors alone..." [1] "Editorial: Peer Review per Physical Review" https://journals.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.100.050001 https://journals.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.100.050001

shishy 5y ago

Yeah back then if an expert in the field said it was worth publishing, even if it was their paper, the editor usually complied. I think the more formal peer review became a thing as editors couldn't keep up with the pace of new publications [1]. 1. https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-historical-perspective/ https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-histo...

sva_ 5y ago

> The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process,[15] began to involve external reviewers in the mid-19th-century,[16] and did not become commonplace until the mid-20th-century.[17] > While some medical journals started to systematically appoint external reviewers, it is only since the middle of the 20th century that this practice has spread widely and that external reviewers have been given some visibility within academic journals, including being thanked by authors and editors.[18][22] A 2003 editorial in Nature stated that, in the early 20th century, "the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas."[23] Nature itself instituted formal peer review only in 1967.[24] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

BeetleB 5y ago

Michael Nielsen has a good article on it: https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific...

belter 5y ago

The peer review process as known today only took off from the second part of the 20th century, but the article also says: "...On 30 July, Tate replied that he regretted Einstein’s decision to withdraw the paper, but stated that he would not set aside the journal’s review procedure..." What seems to imply the peer reviewing process was very much already in place since the early 1920-30's at least for the Physical Review. Also according to historical record:[1] "...We know that by the 1930s, peer review at the journal was more established. Ledger pages from the time contain the same basic information that we now store in our computer: date of receipt, date sent to a reviewer, date returned, date published or rejected. From these, we see that many papers were sent out for expert evaluation, but also that in many cases, the expert assigned to a manuscript was the Editor, John Tate. We also learn that many papers had no referee assigned to them, and that some of these were accepted and some were rejected. Thus during this period, peer review was growing and making a larger contribution, but decisions were still often made by the editors alone..." [1] "Editorial: Peer Review per Physical Review" https://journals.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.100.050001 https://journals.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.100.050001