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
191 RUDERI ER: T IIK I' A I.I ACY O l PEER REVIEW Appendix I The author telephoned the editor on 21 October 1976 to clarify the letter of rejection [H], which did not contain the comments of the three previous reviews. The editor reported that the third reviewer commented that the paper was too diffuse, rambled, did not really contribute anything new and that he could not decide what was being shown. The author replied that such a rejection was too vague and was additionally inadequate because the paper involved correction of a double error in the record — the original published paper and the published comments on it. The editor responded that it was not certain that there was an error to be corrected, that he had to go by the consensus of referees and that the paper could always be submitted elsewhere. The author contended that this was not a certain solution since if he died before receiving an acceptance, the errors may never be corrected in the literature. The editor then agreed to a further review. Appendix J 22 October 1976 The Editor, Science. Dear Dr Abelson, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the status of my submission "One-Way Doppler . . ." in my call on October 21. In accordance with our discussion I am enclosing the MS for further review. As I mentioned, one of the problems in the review of my MS is the heretofore obscurity of one-way theory which I claim is directly relevant to the Cannon-Jensen and the Sadeh-Au findings. This unfamiliarity has interfered with the review — the referees have substituted unsubstantiated opinion for proper technical evaluation. The point they seem to have ignored, and one which is of primary concern to your office, is that if my thesis is correct the published considerations of the Cannon-Jensen report is in serious error and should be forthwith corrected in the printed record. The only other viable alternative is to unequivocally show that my approach is wrong. If further reviewers are informed of this need, it may stimulate a more careful and diligent review. Since the matter is purely a technical one, the question is resolvable. As I indicated, I am willing to communicate directly with any referee, with copies sent to your office, to reach a mutually agreeable decision in the event there are any questions that require clarification in order to reach such a decision. Sincerely yours, Martin Ruderfer
