[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Feduccia: the same old story...



> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:19:05 -0400
> From: dinoboygraphics@aol.com
> 
> Ok, wait, now this discussion has gone places I didn't intend.  Peer
> review, like everything else in science, is done by people, and one
> of our traits is to not be perfect.  I don't think this paper should
> be seen as an indication that the peer review process is in some
> systemic way deficient.

Peer review is a lot like the USA's distinctive constitution.  The
current implementation sucks, but the idea is still good and noble and
worth fighting for.  And even the current implementation is way better
than most of the alternatives.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Any sufficiently complicated C program contains an ad-hoc,
         informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half
         of Common Lisp" -- Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming.