Knowledge and understanding moves slowly forward for humanity. We are currently stuck using a dangerously precarious process that’s known as ‘Peer Review’.
‘Peer Review’ is a process which starts with a research ‘paper’ put together by a research group, and from this paper comes an argument and conclusion arrived at by logical demonstration.
For a paper to mean anything it has to have been published within a publication full of similar subject matter. The bizarre and elitist world of academia tends to turn its nose up at any theory or concept which isn’t first introduced to the world in this way. Equally it looks down on and denigrates those who have not had ‘peer reviewed’ papers published.
Before a ‘paper’ is accepted for publication, it has to be ‘peer reviewed’. ‘Peer review’ is usually organised by the editor. He selects a number of people, in other words ‘peers’, who are supposedly specialists in the field that the paper is about.
Now, in an ideal world, these ‘reviewers’ are honest and true and properly read what’s been said in the paper, and then give the editor of the publication the thumbs up for him/her to then feature the paper. There’s also a process whereby they can highlight parts and knock them back for revision or reject the paper completely. Usually, the editor of the publication will engage 3 or 4 reviewers. But, on a limited specialist subject, the number of truly independent reviewers without an axe to grind is negligible.
You see, this is where it all goes a bit wrong. If the reviewer is part of a cartel that wishes to promote a different conclusion to the paper they are ‘peer reviewing’ they will tell the editor that the paper doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The editor will then simply not publish it.
There are a number of subjects that suffer from this ‘quashing’ by rivals, and none so horrifying as the subject of ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’.
There is a particular narrative that has to be followed when it comes to ‘climate change’. And, it is worth $Billions as an industry, but only as long as it somehow screams that humans are to blame for ‘climate change’. Well, any research that dares to champion a counter narrative, is not allowed. It may throw doubt on the huge grants paid to those who all agree with the political narrative that mankind is bad.
Were a publication to dare to put such a paper into print, it would be subject to blacklisting and harassment from the cartel.
Indeed, when the emails released from the University of East Anglia (‘Climategate’) were studied, we discovered a massive collusion to silence research that didn’t comply with the accepted narrative. A whole load of different people were involved in the bullying, ranging from BBC employees, the government, and, of course, the disgraced Climate Research Unit ‘experts’.
So, the point here is that ‘peer reviewing’ research papers no longer works as a proper way of pushing out ideas to the public. Peer Review is flawed, open to abuse, and extremely old fashioned.
It’s time to replace it with ‘Peer-to-Peer’ review. ‘Peer to Peer’ review is already happening, and it was prompted by the bad treatment of authors under the old system. It’s just not yet accepted as the norm.
Instead of a biased reviewer huddling alone secretly, the new system works by keeping everything public and available for scrutiny by absolutely anybody. A paper is published on a website or blog, and experts or those with more than a passing interest are invited to pull it apart until it is ‘proved’ by consensus and accepted.
This is ‘peer-to-peer’ review and it has to completely replace the fuddy-duddy old way of getting a research paper published. It is foolproof and stops all the nepotism and control by vested interests. It is public, and far more reliable. Yes, it will be resisted and belittled by those who don’t want to lose control.
However, it’s time to replace ‘Peer Review’ with ‘Peer-to-Peer review’.
England's England 