Comments on: The Real Reason that Peer Review is Anonymous

By: Luna_the_cat

Luna_the_cat — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:49:42 +0000

R N B — not the Mighty Creator, but in that truly awful prequel, don’t you remember the “midichlorians”? There are uncanny echoes in the paper….But no, I don’t think it’s a joke, or a deliberate hoax. I think it’s genuine crazy.

By: The Neurocritic

The Neurocritic — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:55:13 +0000

Actually, I see this entire episode as a good reason that peer review should be open. Reviewers should not be able to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, neither for unjust trashing of good work nor for approving “mighty creator” arguments.It’s hard to believe the paper would get by the reviewers and editors of a reputable journal. One possibility is that a copy editor inserted the offending passages into the manuscript at the very last minute, just before it was published online as a PDF. It could’ve been a joke on their part, or perhaps an earnest attempt at ID-type arguments.

By: hip hip array

hip hip array — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:12:53 +0000

Sounds like a weird self-destructive twist on the Sokal Hoax, but probably just incompetence.

By: IanR

IanR — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:45:32 +0000

The first reason – that if you screw up, no one but the editor knows who you are – was very important the first few times I reviewed a manuscript.

By: R N B

R N B — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:44:21 +0000

I’m no big fan of Star Wars, but have seen the movie, and I don’t recall Ben Kenobi talking about the Mighty Creator?But I’d still like to see an admission by one of the reviewers, did they genuinely miss the phrase, or did they discard the creator suggestion as a minor irrelevance? They must be able to publish this clarification anonymously.Now, wonder if there is an icon for “commenting on blogging on peer reviewed research”