Authors: Dieter Gernert
After a short overview of arguments pro and contra peer reviews, examples of gross misjudgement are compiled, followed by an attempt to identify some frequent, recurrent patterns of unjustified rejection of scientific manuscripts. A few specific questions are studied in more detail: the claim for still more precise and comprehensive definitions, the right way of handling "parallel theories", and the frequent misuse of the term "pseudoscience". Finally, practical rules to improve refereeing, and "basic rights of authors" are proposed, together with a word of encouragement for future authors.
Comments: 10 pages, Journal reference - Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.233 – 243, 2008
[v1] 19 Jul 2009
Unique-IP document downloads: 11833 times
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.