Submitted to Current Science

Humans tend to be creatures of habit, plodding along through time, eagerly looking toward the future, but rarely looking with question at circumstances from the past which have set them on their present course. Yet, much of the progress into the future is based upon and consequently dictated by actions and circumstances of the past. Sometimes, both in science and in human affairs, past actions, which may have originally seemed prudent and correct, upon reflection are revealed, in light of new discoveries and subsequent experience, to have been imprudent and incorrect. Two examples from science suffice to illustrate the point:

Example (1): Beginning about 1940, geophysicists erroneously believed the Earth to be like an ordinary chondrite meteorite, and built much of geophysics upon that belief. In 1979 and 1980, I discovered a flaw in the foundation of geophysics, showing instead that the Earth is in the main like an enstatite chondrite, which eventually led to an entirely different development of geophysics with profound implications [1].

Example (2): During the 1930s, physicists developed the idea that the Sun and stars are powered by thermonuclear fusion reactions, which they assumed were brought to ignition temperatures of about a million degrees Celsius by heat produced by the in-fall of dust and gas; the implication being that stars would automatically ignite during formation. Subsequently, realizing the inherent problem, that heat loss, a function of the fourth power of temperature, would be too great, I suggested that thermonuclear fusion reactions in stars, as in hydrogen bombs, are ignited by nuclear fission chain reactions, the prime implication being the possibly of stellar non-ignition, of dark stars. Correcting that flaw in the foundation of astrophysics made possible a fundamentally different understanding of the Universe. Heavy element formation in galactic centers and jetting out into the galaxy of dark stars, igniting those dark stars its matter contacts; the distribution of luminous stars in a galaxy may thus be a reflection of the distribution of heavy elements. For the first time, one might begin to understand in a logical and causally related manner the diversity of galactic presentations [2].

The above examples are presented to show the prudence and importance of looking backward in time, with the view of correcting fundamental flaws, and, thus done, progressing afresh and without past blunder-based impediments. Think of the past as a foundation. To build for the future, one should want to build upon a solid, secure foundation, devoid of flaws. As India progresses into her scientific and technological renaissance, her leaders may wish to look questioningly at the past, so as to chart a new path for her future and to build upon a solid, unflawed foundation. In this communication, I reveal a more-serious-than-previously-discussed consequence of the flawed, institutionalized peer review concept, invented in the 1950s by the U. S. National Science Foundation (NSF), and I propose for India a methodology for science organization and reporting that eliminates the impediments and abuses posed by peer review and its consequences.

Prior to World War II, when a scientist wanted to publish a paper, he/she would send it to the editor of a scholarly journal for publication and generally it would be published. A new, unpublished scientist was required to obtain the endorsement of a published scientist before submitting a manuscript.

In 1951, the U. S. National Science Foundation (NSF) was established to provide support for post-World War II scientific research. Soon thereafter, someone associated with NSF had the idea that reviewers of scientific proposals for government grant monies should be “peers” in the scientific community and that the reviewers should be anonymous, the idea being that anonymity would encourage honesty in evaluation, even when those reviewers might be competitors or might have vested interests. The idea of using anonymous peer reviewers must have seemed like an administrative stroke of genius as the process was adopted by government agencies which followed, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and was adopted almost universally by editors of scientific journals.  

The entire concept of peer review, as practiced by government agencies and by virtually all journals, is based upon false premises regarding human capability and human nature. Peer review is based upon the false premises that reviewers will provide objective and honest appraisals of others’ work, even when those others may be professional competitors. Editors of scientific journals often refer to their reviewers as “experts”, but where important advances in science are concerned, the real expert(s) are the report’s author(s). Some others, usually the competitors of the author(s), may be reasonably knowledgeable, but certainly not “expert”, or they would have made the discovery. Moreover, journals and their editors may have their own agendas and vested interests, commercial or protectionist, which may not be immediately obvious, such as shielding an “in group” from challenges to their inferior work, or pandering to a particular readership or popular topic-interest. Peer review is based upon the false presumption that generally an editor can solicit reviews and make reasoned judgments therefrom. In more than three decades as a scientist, I have experienced only two editors who demonstrated the depth of knowledge, both of science and of human nature, to make such a system work; most editors act as clerks, who simply tabulate opinions, adversely impacting the progress of science. Adding anonymity worsens the process immensely.

For decades, the use of anonymity at NSF, NASA, and elsewhere has been gradually corrupting American science. Unethical reviewers — secure, hidden and unaccountable through anonymity — all too often make untrue and/or pejorative statements to eliminate their professional competitors. It is a pervasive, corrupt system that encourages and rewards the worst elements of human nature and instills an element of fear throughout the scientific community. Scientists are quick to realize that citing work that challenges the “consensus view” might well result in their reports not being published and their proposals for grant funds receiving negative reviews. Consequently, important scientific contradictions, if they can be published at all, are selectively ignored; sub-standard, but reviewer-safe, consensus-nonsense too often flourishes inlieu of objective science.

In America, grants from funding agencies, such as NSF, are made to universities and to research organizations; not to individual scientists, who serve as principal investigators. There is something fundamentally wrong with a university accepting taxpayer-provided funds to conduct scientific research while at the same time knowingly permitting its faculty/employees to engage in the suppression of important new scientific communications. In America, universities and research institutions do just that, as I have documented from experience [3]. Such practice leads to the perpetuation of inferior science, robs the nation of the benefits of good science, and, in my view, is no different than perpetrating fraud on the American taxpayer. Does this necessarily have to be the course for India? I think not.

I have revealed that the principle cause for the decline of American science and education began with the above described “peer-review” flaw, invented, implemented, and institutionalized by NSF in the 1950s [4]. India’s leaders may wish to look at this flaw in the foundation, and may wish to begin to build from a different, solid foundation. Toward that end, I would like to suggest a mechanism for scientific reporting and scientific communications that would eliminate the impediments and disadvantages of peer review.

Research institutions, private and government-funded, form the backbone of India’s scientific and technological infrastructure. I would like to suggest that the Indian Government consider establishing an e-journal template for each and all of her institutions, which would serve as the primary mechanism for publishing Indian scientific and technological results. At each research institution, every institutional researcher would be able to publish his/her/their research results without any review, other than the internal reviews and standards imposed by the respective institution. In addition to adapting certain strategies from existing e-journals, such as links to research data, the proposed new system may contain unique elements, such as templates for specific comments from the posting author(s). The questions below provide some possible examples:

“What is the importance and uniqueness of this report?”  The answer to this question may be of value to government administrators, to other scientists in the field, to commercial organizations, to the public and to the media. But there is the additional benefit of helping to bring into focus the idea that success should relate to the importance and uniqueness of the work, and not to the number of papers published.

“What approaches were tried but did not work?” Scientific reports rarely address this question, but the answer provides useful information that may help to keep others from repeating fruitless activities, or it may allow others who have different insights to glimpse new paths to try.

“What are the competing and conflicting ideas?” Actually, this information should be part of any good scientific report. But, over the past several decades, either out of fear of anonymous reviewers or to keep an unbreakable lock on research funds, it is not unusual for scientists to completely ignore contradictory work, which is poor science that can lead to wasted resources and missed opportunities.

“What are the lessons learned?” Scientific reports rarely address this question, but in any truly pioneering endeavor the answer to that question helps individuals focus on improving their techniques and methodologies.

Many benefits are to be gained through implementing the above described publication system as the primary publication outlet for Indian research institutions, including:

·        A low-cost means to guarantee free access to Indian research without attempting to force change on the organizations that presently control access, such as publishing companies that charge fees both for publishing and for copies of reports they have published.

·        A means for rapid publication of research results, while obviating many of the impediments existent in the other, older publication system, such as the delays caused by reviewers whose intent is to delay or prevent publication.

·        Providing government and private-sector administrators with readily accessible, across-the-board, current-view project information.

·        Help researchers focus on the important elements of their investigations, rather than deflecting energy and resources on exaggerated publication.

The prototype primary publication system I have suggested above may be readily adapted to existing Indian research institutions, improving the quality and focus of their research activities at major cost savings as well. In executing such a system, though, some provision should put in place wherein groups of independent researchers could charter as an Indian research institution for the purpose of publication or perhaps have a means to petition access from some existing research institutions. Membership or affiliation should be limited to one institution per individual.

There is historical precedent for the publication system I am suggesting. Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919), the American steel-magnate, endowed numerous museums, libraries, educational and research institutions, including The Carnegie Institution of Washington, DC (CIW).  In 1902, CIW began publishing annually its Yearbook, which included a report of its President and reports of individual  scientific investigations. For more than half a century, until the 1980s when CIW decided to do those things necessary to compete for NASA and NSF grants, the Yearbook served as the primary publishing outlet for CIW scientific investigations, without any review, other than the internal reviews and standards imposed by the institution and its own employees.

People throughout the world become frustrated to find an article of interest and relevance, only to discover that they must pay typically 30 US$ for an electronic copy, even though as a taxpayer they may have funded the research and the cost of publication. This, though, is only the tip of the iceberg; far greater costs and impediments are not so visible. There is no reason to continue such a costly, flawed system fraught with impediments and obstacles to good science. E-journals have now come of age as have search engines for finding relevant articles. Through implementation of a system such as I have described, India may not only obviate the problems and shortcomings of peer review and the institutional debilitation associated therewith, but may advance her own scientific and technological interests and leadership as well.

References

1. For complete references and overview see http://UnderstandEarth.com

2. For complete references and overview see http://NuclearPlanet.com

3. Herndon, J. M., Maverick’s Earth and Universe, Trafford Press, Vancouver, 2008.

4. Herndon, J. M., Basic Cause for the Decline of American Science, in Against the Tide, Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, 2008

Return Home