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
190 RUDER I ER: T IIK I' A I.I ACY O l PEER REVIEW UTC", but wrongly cites this as prejudicial to my findings by stating these time scales are not "based on any fundamental physical process, as required by theory". This may apply to the Cannon-Jensen theory, but emphatically does not to one-way synchronisation, as I explained in the MS. This further confirms that [D] may not have read my Discussion section. The referees' comments are undoubtedly due at least partly to the heretofore obscurity of one-way theory, its application and its interpretation. Nevertheless these apply directly to the Cannon-Jensen and Sadeh-Au data and to the theory of noninertial flat-space phenomena. Although one-way theory has been around for some time, it has still not entered the mainstream of current thinking. When the paradigms of the establishment are challenged the worst failings of the referee system surface, but the potential for advance is maximum. I therefore hope that any further review will properly consider the matters I have raised. Since the two copies of the computational notes and reference reprints are still in your possession, I trust that they will be forwarded with the MS in any further review, in addition to the comments above. Sincerely yours, Martin Ruderfer. Appendix F The author telephoned the secretary to the editor on 20 August 1976 and was informed that the editor is out of the country and would return on 30 August. In reply to a request for status of the paper, the secretary stated one reviewer reported the paper to be "excellent" and a second was negative. The paper was sent to a third reviewer whose report is overdue. Appendix G The author telephoned the editor on 1 October 1976 to inquire on the status of the paper. The editor confirmed that one reviewer cited the paper as "excellent" and that the second was equivocal. The paper is still in the hands of a third reviewer who is being prodded to reply. Appendix H 15 October 1976 Dear Dr Ruderfer, Your paper, "One-Way Effects in Atomic Timekeeping", is not accepted. The pressure of papers is very large and even when publication is merited, we often decline such papers. Yours truly, Editorial Staff.
