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
194 RUDERI ER: TIIK I'AI.I ACY Ol PEER REVIEW Because the referee believes equation (13), on which the author bases his discussion, is incorrect and there are a number of errors in the derivation, he is of the opinion that the discussion is not convincing. The refractive effects are a "subsidiary issue" not useful to the author for establishing existence of one-way effects. There appears to be no good reason for writing equation (20). The author's reference on line 2 above equation (16) to t as the "time measured by the stationary clock" is not clear as clocks on Earth's surface are all stationary in Earth's reference frame. "The meaning of t is not made clear until [p. 394]." "Phenomenally" should be replaced by "phenomenologically"; "rigidly" should be replaced by "rigorously"; and T x ' on [p. 393] is the systematic error, not the uncertainty in T'. In the [p. 400] discussion, Sun's effect is not locally detectable, by the principle of equivalence, in a freely falling (locally inertial) frame, as Earth. A second-order Doppler effect due to Earth's orbital motion, overlooked by the author, cancels the term g 5h/c 2 . Appendix 0 26 February 1977 The Editor, Science. Dear Dr Abelson, Thank you for the inclusion of the latest referees' reports with the return of my MS "One-Way Doppler . . ." and for your continued cooperation in trying to resolve the correction of the Cannon-Jensen reports brought up by the MS. The short review is of no value in settling the technical problem; the referee is apparently reluctant to tackle the issues and is passing the buck. The longer review appears to be an attempt to resolve the matter; however in a technical sense it is inane and ineffective. For your reference I enclose my comments on this review. This matter would be ludicrous if it were not so serious — the advancement of science and technology is the key to man's future survival. The scientific journals require rigorous adherence to scientific principles in submitted manuscripts, yet they consistently neglect to apply equal rigour in judging them. To editors, reviews by one or two referees without further verification are sufficient cause for arbitrary rejection. But no scientific matter can properly be decided by the political expedient of popular vote. Would you allow any author to justify a theory or conclusion with the statement that it is the most popular? When is something to be done about putting science into the judgement of technical submissions? I offered one way in our telecon and in my letter of October 22, 1976 — a closed-loop review. If the referee had contacted me first I would have pointed
