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

186 RUDER

I ER: T

IIK I'

A

I.I ACY O

l PEER REVIEW Table 2 — Summary of Correspondence Time Delays Response Appendix Delay (days) Delay Totals (days) Fraction of Total (%) Average delay per response (days) MS in transit: A E 5 4 J 18 27 6.2 9 Review reports: A-B* E-H* 73 147 J-L* 107 327 75.5 109 Author letters: B-E H-J L-0 11 7 2 Q-R 5 25 5.8 6.3 Editor letters: O-Q 13 R-S 41 54 12.5 27 Totals: 433 433 100.0 * Less manuscript (MS) transit time Appendix A The Editor, Science. Dear Sir, On 2 June 1975 I submitted an MS attempting to correct the article by Cannon and Jensen (188, 317). This was justifiably rejected in your letter of 29 July. I have since examined their article in more detail, as well as the Technical Comments you recently published, and have discussed with Cannon and Jensen their original article. I find that there is a satisfactory explanation of their findings, including their subsequent negative result, which has been overlooked. This is discussed in the enclosed MS entitled "One-Way Doppler Effects in Atomic Timekeeping", which is hereby submitted for publication in Science. My approach is based on research I have been conducting over the past 15 years on the one-way velocity of light and its interpretation. This is a littleexplored area, but it is directly relevant to the findings of Cannon and Jensen. It not only accounts for their work, but also clarifies certain observations by Sadeh. and associates which, to my knowledge, have not yet been satisfactorily explained.