Braun Tibor, Schubert András (szerk.): Szakértői bírálat (peer review) a tudományos kutatásban : Válogatott tanulmányok a téma szakirodalmából (A MTAK Informatikai És Tudományelemzési Sorozata 7., 1993)
MARTIN RUDERFER: The Fallacy of Peer Review: Judgement without Science and a Case History
187 RUDER I ER: T IIK I' A I.I ACY O l PEER REVIEW Only those knowledgeable in atomic timekeeping would be appropriate as referees, such as the reviewer(s) of the Cannon and Jensen reports. (Material deleted ) Of course Cannon or Jensen would be appropriate unless you consider a possible conflict of interest to be an objection. For the convenience of the reviewers I am also enclosing reprints of cited articles of mine and copies of computational notes. Sincerely yours, Martin Ruderfer. Appendix B Note: All letters from Science have been paraphrased. 6 May 1976 Dear Dr Ruderfer, Your paper on "One-Way Doppler Effects in Atomic Timekeeping" has not been accepted and the referee's comments and your manuscript are enclosed. Yours truly, Editorial Staff. Appendix C Note: By the kind permission of the referee, this report is reproduced with the exact wording of the original. The author is apparently unaware that Cannon and Jensen handling of the atomic clock data was incorrect. This was pointed out in a letter to Science which I reviewed and which was from Greenwich Observatory scientists. Cannon and Jensen were apparently unaware of synchronization procedures which made their data analysis incorrect. Thus, Ruderfer's explanation of "their findings" (top of page 3) [bottom of p. 387 and top of p. 388] does not in my opinion deserve publication. Appendix D Note: This referee refused permission to reproduce his comments exactly. The following is a paraphrased version of the original report. The referee rejected the paper for unmentioned objections but, for brevity, cited only these typical instances:
