博文

[转载]关于取消期刊同行评审的对话（取消期刊伪同行评审利大于弊）

已有 1621 次阅读 2024-4-14 07:42 |个人分类:微波吸收|系统分类:科研笔记|文章来源:转载

The Compton Wavelength Is the True Matter Wavelength, Linked to the Photon Wavelength, While the de Broglie Wavelength Is Simply a Mathematical Derivative - Article (Preprint v2) by Prof. Espen Gaarder Haug | Qeios

============

Comment to:

James McClymer's Review · Dec 19, 2023

https://doi.org/10.32388/S707SS

================

For a new theory, the conclusion from peer reviewers should be based on a full understanding of the arguments of the proposed theory. If the comments against the theory fail to convince the authors of its wrongness, both views should be published for public consideration.

If no reviewer can be found to review a manuscript, it may not necessarily indicate that the contents are outside the journal's scope. It could also suggest that the views expressed are so novel that no one understands them, warranting publication for further scrutiny.

--------------------- “Peer review serves as a quality control mechanism to ensure that only scientifically sound and methodologically rigorous research is published. Bypassing this process may lead to the dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information.”

Comment: Science would be better if censorship were banned. Outstanding papers would stand out naturally in history, and junk papers would die out naturally if commercial promotion and journal rank were banned.

错误不是毒蛇猛兽

宁愿发表错误文章，也不发表垃圾文章

科学不怕错误，科学有自我纠错功能。

科学的正确走向不需要人为保证。

----------------

“Without proper peer review, there is a higher risk of misinterpretation and misinformation. Non-experts may struggle to evaluate the validity of a theory, leading to potential misuse or misapplication of the findings.”

Comment: Scientific research papers are intended for specialists rather than laypeople.

------------------------

“Peer review helps maintain scientific rigor and standards within a field. Without this process, there is a risk of lowering the overall quality of scientific discourse and undermining trust in research findings.”

Comment: Scientific papers are not textbooks; censorship only hinders innovations.

=======================

“Publishing a theory without peer review may undermine the credibility of the work and the author in the academic community. This can hinder future research efforts and collaborations.”

Comment: Establishing authority can be a source of resistance to new science, as it challenges existing paradigms and established beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0H-amOti_o

Why You Should Never Say "It's Just A Theory"

无为而治

少数几个审稿人花5分钟的时间审稿的期刊和项目同行评审简直是小孩子过家家。

真正的同行评审发生在文章发表之后。

同行评审就是你的同行有能力阻止世界了解你的工作

为什么当代出版实践扭曲了科学

同行评审使专业阶层将信息把关过程变成了保护他们自身地位的保障

现代科学界真正的同行评审几乎已经死亡

科学界是一个保守的体系，科学家并不愿意接受新思想

北大教授乔晓春：高被引论文并不代表高质量论文-科学网视频-科学网 (sciencenet.cn)

上海交通大学杨枫教授-把学术界改造成美丽世界-科学网视频-科学网 (sciencenet.cn)

====================

不能发表纠错文章几乎成了学术界的潜规则

Vazire, S., 2020. A toast to the error detectors. Nature. 577, 9.

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2

=================

主流期刊不发表反对主流理论的文章几乎成了学术界的潜规则：

"后来我父亲又把论文寄到美国物理评论（Physics Review），杂志编辑很重视这篇文章，先后5次提出这样那样的问题，质疑论文的各项立论，都被我父亲圆满解答，这就是后来所说的“五个回合的较量”。最后编辑理屈词穷，由总编辑出面答复我父亲，承认无法再提问题，承认您的文章无懈可击，但因考虑该刊为主流物理杂志，不适宜刊登，建议到别的杂志社。

"https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1582700776632704690&wfr=spider&for=pc

绝对真实,卢家人了挑战爱因斯坦,卢氏就是牛!

====================

参考文献引用的潜规则

科学网—引用参考文献的若干“潜规则” - 黄河宁的博文 (sciencenet.cn)

“甚至要求引用文章的期刊分布、数据库分布要均衡”：这是把学术研究变成学术游戏的典型代表。科学研究不应该看任何人的脸色

“必须引用新近发表的论文”是跟风盛行的写照。难道颠覆性创新只能源于跟风研究？

https://www.yicai.com/news/5345088.html

许小年：创新没有风口，凡是追逐风口的行为都不是创新

http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365753.shtml

http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365756.shtml

张维迎：创新就是大部分人都不认同的想法

https://www.wenmi.com/article/puj98i03nn9k.html

多数人认同的不叫创新

https://www.sass.org.cn/_s3/_t31/2008/1229/c1201a26145/page.psp

但“创新”意味着与众不同，公认的东西往往是常识

https://news.ifeng.com/c/7fcJvZmKtue

学术评价与学术程序的质量都取决于学术共同体的质量

https://www.growkudos.com/publications/10.1063%252F5.0153612/reader

=======================

已经投入应用的就是已经被验证的真理吗？

"Companies were formed, including one headed by Anversa, based on the claim that by injecting stem cells they could heal hearts that were damaged by heart attacks.

...

But what about those companies selling stem cell treatments for the heart?"

Harvard calls for retraction of dozens of studies by noted cardiologist | Honolulu Star-Advertiser (staradvertiser.com)

“Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations.” --Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5 引申：历史是最公正的。历史反复证明，那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕，而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。 Expansion: History serves as the ultimate arbiter. It consistently reveals that what is often overemphasized by the prominent scholars of an era is often merely the intentional promotion of mediocrity, while that which is suppressed by the prevailing contemporary scholars often reveals itself to be authentic and of true value.

“只有实验验证了的理论才能被认可”的意思是不认可理论研究

教学名师不是优美的教态、不是工整的板书、不是美观教案，教学名师更是对教材逻辑内容的理解

化学不是实验科学、物理不是实验科学、正确的理论才是检验科学的唯一标准

大咖们写的综述有多大的学术价值？

做学问更是为了继承人类最优秀的成果，其次才是创新（科学研究的指导思想）

坚持基础研究，做有科学意义的工作（做学问的哲理）

====

“为何一个错误的研究和结果近20年还不断有人跟随，直至现在才被彻底揭穿？