Forgive this untimely delivery to your inbox but I was sent an article that directly addresses the comments I made about the status of science in last week’s article about climate change and I thought it worth sharing.
Here is the background. I completed my academic career when I was “elderly” and many wondered, “Why bother?” Well… My employer was willing to underwrite some of the cost, I was convinced that my hypothesis would provide a path to greater riches, and I was doing the research anyway so why not scoop up a PhD in the process.
For the most part, it was a great experience. The writing style of my dissertation was decidedly not academic and included some funny sarcasm. Much to my surprise, my thesis committee loved it and asked me to do a seminar on “How to write a dissertation”. Or they said they loved it. At my thesis defense the external examiner offered up six pages of why the dissertation was grossly inadequate and, but for my writing style, should be failed. He must have laughed at a few of the jokes. I wrote to thank him for taking the time to read what I had written and for offering excellent suggestions that made for a better submission. He expressed surprise at my “mature response” and I filled him in on my maturity. It was a “close run thing” to quote the Duke of Wellington.
All this is offered as context for this cartoon.
Last week I mentioned the unfortunate case of Dr. Daniel Schechtman. What I didn’t say was that I was made aware of Dr. Schechtman at a conference held in his honour and that, among other things, examined the inadequacy of the peer review process. At the time, I really didn’t care about that. I went because the conference was in Cancun.
Now for a warning. The peer review process is somewhat esoteric and this would be a good place to bail on this substack for those who are not interested.
For those who are interested, I offer this 2005 paper by Dr. John Ionnidis as Exhibit 1 for the failure of the peer review process (Why most published research findings are false). If he is right, (and I think he is) then so much for the validity of the peer review process.
Why am I writing about this topic again? My well published daughter (Science and Nature), read my climate change substack and forwarded me this very good treatment of the peer review process. Congruent with my argument about the decline of science, I thought Mr. Mastroianni’s work should be shared. There is a very interesting interchange of ideas in the comments section as well.
If you have ever been beaten up in the peer review process I can hear your cheers. I believe in peer review, but clearly there are better ways to formalize that sadomasochistic process, end the “journal reign of terror”, and produce higher quality scientific research.
I will be back to my regular publication schedule this Thursday - a reprise of ChatGPT and the recent, breathless promises of the World Economic Forum.