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

196 RUDERFER: THE FALLACY OF PEER REVIEW 196 Although it is true that the phase wavefront cannot be measured in flight, it is nevertheless observable at the time the wavefront enters the observer's measuring apparatus. Equations (9) and (10) are thereby operational and pertinent. The referee's confusion between T and t is exemplified by his remark that T = 0 for a rotating clock. Since T = r/c, it is necessarily > 0 when r > 0 as in the context discussed. There is no uncertainty about the meaning of t — it is clearly defined in Equation (1). In his last comment the referee has misapplied the principle of equivalence. The gravitational redshift gh/c

2 exists independently of the Doppler shift (e.g. see J.B. Thomas, Astron. J., 80, 407 (1975), right column). For Earth, these give separate contributions to the total frequency shift of a surface clock and were so calculated by Cannon and Jensen. These were also independently evaluated in the Hafele and Keating experiment. An earlier referee rightly pointed out that corresponding contributions from Sun also exist at the clock site. I simply showed on p.l9a [p.400] that the daily change in gravitational redshift between the clock positions nearest to and furthest from Sun, g

sh/c

2, is negligible. The orbital Doppler shift is included in the analysis comprising Equations (24)—(32). In sum, the referee bases his rejection on an alleged falsification of Equation (13) which he correctly states is "crucial for the author's contention". However his attempt at falsification is grossly in error. It should be further noted that Cannon and Jensen did not reject their original findings but only their theory. Without a theory they could not harmonize their original findings with the later one with about 80 clocks and chose the ad hoc explanation of an "artifact" in the data. My MS affirms that all of their data have a common explanation required by relativity. M. Ruderfer Appendix Q 11 March 1977 Dear Dr Ruderfer, Your paper, "One-Way Doppler Effects in Atomic Timekeeping", has by this time been examined by nine people of known competence whose opinion is that we should not publish it. We decline to consider this paper any further. Yours truly, Editorial Staff.