A. “Google peer review”
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/380.page#1497

Seeks comments on “crowd-sourcing the peer review process”.

Even though in this case the Google code is just a site that hosts other people’s projects, the developers just using Google’s hosting, in essence Google enables and promotes this… prudent prospective business development…

B. Enhancing Peer Review (NIH/OD)
Sent:Jan 03, 2009
To: henisdov
Subject:Peer Review And Innovation

Dear Dov Henis,

Thank you for your input. Please be aware that a significant part of
the process to Enhance Peer Review is “Continuous Review of Peer
Review.” We will keep your comments under consideration.

The Enhancing Peer Review Team
http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov
“…fund the best science, by the best scientists, with the least amount
of administrative burden.”

C. From earlier postings of mine:

“Peer Review” is, factually, a tool of a “Subversive Activities Control Board”, a tool of the Science Establishment.

The most revolting corrupt aspect of peer review in science is its exploitation by the Science Establishment to tightly clamp its political and financial omni-everything power, rule, control and censorship, including stifling of any shred of scientific innovation not originated or not publicized via The Establishment’s network.

The corruption is not inherent in the tool, but in the nature of the Science Establishment and in the characteristics of its obsequious functionaries.

“Implications Of Science And Technology Evolution”
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1&p=419

The AAAS and its affiliates and equivalent organizations, i.e. all the Science Establishment Guilds, loudly and pseudoscientifically promote and “profoundly respect” the “spiritual religious domain” as a real domain, a domain separate from the real science domain. They do this both because, unbelievably, they actually believe it and as a politically powerful tool in promoting towards themselves public esteem-acceptance and state-public financial support.

The peer review process is a tool of the Establishment. As long as the Science Establishment Guilds are what they now are and as long as they enjoy the public and state esteem they now have, and as long as Science and Technologhy are not seperated from each other conceptually and administratively but considered and handled as one faculty, the corruption of science cannot and will not be overcome. These 21st century technology culture aspects have been well inscribed and entrenched by Science’s Big Brothers in the minds and conceptions of the public.

D. The lesson of the wikipedia-encyclopedia’s “public-sourcing” product,

and of additional currently on-line “outside-Establishment-sourcing” science publishing start-ups
is discouraging. IMO the GPeerReview is destined to end up similarly, i.e. as a cheaper, more available, second-hand product proudly claimed to be produced with the Establishment’s rules-regulations-considerations even if “made in China” for faster and cheaper delivery and for more wide-spread availability.

Thus science publishing delivery will become faster and cheaper but the products will be made and cleared with today’s combination of writing rules-regulations and peer-review ecclestiasticism that have been so deeply inscribed in the flock of the 21st century Science Establishment Church.

Dov Henis

(A DH Comment From The 22nd Century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1

Climatology is a special case. Peer-review is worthless in climatology, because almost no climatologists are scientists. They are anti-scientists. They should observe a phenomenon, make a hypothesis about it, design an experiment to test the hypothesis, evaluate the experimental data, and accept or revise their hypothesis. Instead, they observe a phenomenon (increased mean temperatures on land for 9 years), make an unsupported generalization (global warming), assign a cause (burning of fossil fuels), selectively mine other climate data, create a bad mathematical model, call a press conference, and demand radical lifestyle changes to prevent Waterworld.

What I find most frustrating is the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the greenhouse effect applies to the open atmosphere. My hypothesis is that in an open system, increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations have almost no effect on global temperatures. Climatologists hypothesize that the magnitude of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is at least as great as the effect in a sealed greenhouse. But, they have never performed experiments to verify their hypothesis. Grrr.

I am under the impression that “peer review” has as its primary purpose policing papers to ensure that the dogma of the guild has not been sullied, and that everything said has been said before.

As contrasted with a scientific paper where the information provided is intended to encourage replication and verification by others or, conversely, to encourage strength-testing by attempts to falsify the information presented..