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

192 RUDER

I ER: T

IIK I'A

I.I ACY O

l PEER REVIEW Appendix K 11 February 1977 The Editor, Science. Dear Dr Abelson, It is almost four months since I resubmitted my MS "One-Way Doppler ..." for further review and one year since my original submission. Is there some problem with the present review and can I assist in any way? Because the MS has raised the question of a serious error published in your journal relating to the original Cannon and Jensen report and the further re-enforcement of this error in your Technical Comments section, such delays are deleterious to the best interests of scientific progress. I trust that this matter can be resolved to our mutual satisfaction soon. Sincerely yours, Martin Ruderfer. Appendix L 24 February 1977 Dear Dr Ruderfer, Your paper, "One-Way Doppler Effects in Atomic Timekeeping", has not been accepted. The manuscript and referee's comments are enclosed. We hope this may help you in the modification of the paper for resubmission somewhere else. Yours truly, Editorial Staff. Appendix M Note: This referee refused permission to reproduce his comments exactly. The following is a paraphrased version of the original report. The referee states that he still cannot find anything to recommend publication and feels that additional resubmission should not be encouraged. Appendix N Note: This referee refused permission to reproduce his comments exactly. The following is a paraphrased version of the original report.