by smiley » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 09:41:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m sorry to say this, but based on first-hand experience, I know that this is just plain wrong. I have not suffered myself, but I have seen a lot of examples among colleagues.
I can understand people feel mistreated when their articles get rejected. I know from experience that it feels shitty when you have months of work rejected. I also admit the reviewing proces is not entirely foul proof. But overall the reviewing process is extremely effective and fair. The probability that valid work is rejected by multiple papers is virtually non existent.
For those who are not familiar with scientific publicizing. When you file a paper, it is sent to a number of colleagues (peers) which review the paper and make recommendations to publish it or not and whether to make any changes. As an author you get a transcript of the commentary by the reviewer. These recommendations have to be in the form of scientific arguments.
If a paper is rejected you are allowed to write an appeal in which you explain why the reviewer is wrong in his comments or what changes you suggest to satisfy the reviewer. The reviewer then writes a reply, and finally the editor decides to overrule this reviewer or not.
For a reviewer overruling often means that you are taken of the list of reviewers. Since being a reviewer for a prestigious journal is a considered to be a sign of authority, most reviewers are very cautious to reject papers. Papers with doubtful contents are more often accepted than rejected, simply because the reviewers could not find strong enough arguments to reject the papers.
You give some examples yourself. Eugenics and racial biology. I'm certain that some of the reviewers found the content of these practices barbarous. However you cannot reject a publication based on morals or etics, just on scientific content.
So if a author claims that all his articles are rejected by a number of journals, he would be wise to consider the possibility that there are some major deficiencies in his theories that need reconsideration rather than to blame it on a worldwide conspiracy.
You also have to consider the origin of the system. If I'm correct the current practice of peer review started in the 17th century with the British Royal Philosophical Society. It worked then in the midst of religious and political pressure and clashes, so why should it not work now? Do you believe that a corporation like Merx has more power than king James then?