Open Peer Review to Save the World by Philip Gibbs

Philip,

I think we first have to recognize the very act of forming a thought introduces bias. Like a lens, it focuses the information from a larger context to a specific frame of perception.

I certainly agree with your argument otherwise, just that we have to deal with the patterns of conceptual framing building up and breaking down as a regular feature of the process of increasing knowledge.

I keep trying to make a singularly basic point about the nature of time; That since we, as individual points of reference experience change as a sequence of singular events, we perceive time as the present moving from past to future and physics further distills this to measures of duration, but the actual reality is that it is the changing configuration of what physically exists which turns future into past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the world turns, not that there is some flow, or fourth dimension along which the earth exists from yesterday to tomorrow. As simple as this seems, it is universally ignored, because it would make time much more like temperature, than space and that would upset a lot of important apple carts.

You might say time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. It is just that with time, we focus on the rate of change, but haven't discovered a universal measure of this rate. With temperature, we accept the measure as the average of lots of individual amplitudes/velocities, yet that is what time is as well, the overall effect of lots of individual actions.

You would think a faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. As it ages/burns/processes quicker, it actually recedes into the past faster.

I could go on, but my success at getting anyone with a physics background to consider the ramifications of this point is nil. I would point out the math of epicycles worked quite well, but the mechanics were rather convoluted.

I do know that having this point ignored is not proof it is wrong.

Regards,

John Merryman

Dear Philip,

On first reading: I support your important essay 100%.

At the moment: I can see no reason to change that preliminary assessment; so I'll be most interested to see/learn what objections might be raised.

With best regards; Gordon

Dear Dr. Philip,

Your suggestion of open peer-review, is the only hope, for progress of science.

If there were no viXra, then my following manscripts have remained uncommunicated with the world. As long as the problem of 'wave-particle-duality' was not solved, for more than nine decades, there used to be a lot of discussion and debate among thousands of scientists; still the physicists had to rmain satisfied with 'mutual-exclusiveness' of waves and particles; and their 'complimentarity'. And now, when the problem has ultimately been solvd, most of the editors told, "The explanation is very simple, so not suitable for publication in our journal". Actually, the editors, and the physicists are feeling shy, why they could not think of such a simple explanation! But GOD had his own plan, so He selected a very simple person, to resolve the puzzle of 'wave-particle-duality'. The explanation is described in the following papers:

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1402.0153v3.pdf

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1403.0947v1.pdf

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1403.0266v2.pdf

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Dear Philip,

I wondered already when your essay was coming, but here you are in full form.

Indeed one of the important tools in steering the future of humanity is trying to influence the scientific world that gives humanity not only knowledge but also tools for nourishment and/or destruction.

You gave science already a new impulse through VIXRA, that is a great tool for the OPENNESS of the results from scientific research and even philosophical approach, bravo for that, and I also thank you for the possibility that is given this way.

It is indeed as you say very important that people can react on on peer reviews, this is of great importance for the authors.

As I indicated already my contribution is of a more philosophical side, but I hope that you will find some spare time to read it and maybe leave a post on my thread. If you like to give it a rating in accordance with your appreciation I would be very obliged.

Best regards Phil and good luck

Wilhelmus

Dear Philip,

what I like in your essay is the smooth flow of the reasoning and the narrative, and the several pieces of concrete information (data, references, examples) that you provide in support to your claims.

One aspect that I personally see as a potential weakness in your analysis is the great optimism that you put into the `solutions` that should be found in papers from the ongoing current scientific literature - be it open access/reviewed or not.

You write:

`We have the intellectual capacity to figure these things out and steer the right course, yet we fail.` This claim reminds me of another essay I`ve read here (Sabine Hossenfelder), who also says that the problem is NOT that we lack ideas for what to do.

More than one essay here suggests that a mismatch has been reached between the skills reached by humans via evolution, and the complexity of the mixed natural/artificial global environment where we live. So I am a bit more skeptical about a totally rationalistic approach, and on the possibility to govern a complex system whose emergent phenomena seem to happen high above our heads, out of the reach of our hands or individual brains (to put it roughly). This of course will never stop us from doing science (and art), in order to understand better our universe and ourselves.

Another, more concrete point.

One of the remarks I appreciated most in your essay is the one at the bottom, where you acknowledge that the problem of biased evaluation is likely to affect equally badly the expert peer-reviews in the current official system, and the reviews from the general public. I fully agree. The reviews from supposed experts may suffer from the biases you describe, and other problems (referee reports for conference submissions, for example, has undergone a sad shrinking in length and depth, in my experience as PC member for Soft. Eng. conferences in the 80`s and 90`s), but I also notice that in some alternative, Web-based open contexts the risk is to end up with a proliferation of `reviews` that suffer themselves not only from biases, but also from other, even more severe limitations. I am not sure whether shifting to the system you describe will always turn into an advantage for the authors, and the quality of their work.

In fact, let`s consider this FQXi Contest. In my experience, I cannot say that the feedback I have received is clearly superior, to the effect of helping me improve the text, than what I could have expected from three anonymous `expert` referee reports.

Your experience?

Best regards

Tommaso

Phillip - A thoughtful indictment and proposed solution for a significant problem in scientific publication. The FQXi process seems to incorporate some of what you suggest - publication of all essays, open and visible (but publicly confidential) community review. There will still be weaknesses of course - increasing specialization (few qualified reviewers), control over funding decisions, and the continuing incentives for being novel and being first. (I cite these in my essay: The Tip of the Spear.)

Have you thought about ways to apply this model to other institutions outside of science? Wouldn't it be great if our political process were subject to open peer/community review?

Thanks - George

Before I comment..

I want you to know, Phil, that I am horribly biased, or at least I think I must be. I am firmly convinced that I know nothing at all, but people keep telling me I am wrong. Can open peer review help someone like myself?

Other than doubting my own veracity; I think your essay was excellent. There were a few spelling errors to point out (the meteorite article author's name was likely Hans), but otherwise the paper was well thought out, well-written, and should be well-received. I think if the truth about arXiv was more broadly known, for example, people would be up in arms over its unfair or abusive practices - at least if those same people were not afraid to have their own papers blackballed by the arXiv moderators, with no hope of redress.

So obviously there is a need for a way to validate or clear academic papers, without having so many academically sound papers get panned because the author lacks the right affiliation, the right endorser, a degree from a well-respected institution - or other qualifications that do not influence the quality of the work. For the record; I've seen my share of poorly written papers by well-respected scholars, and excellent papers both in content and writing quality - from people who are relative unknowns. So good qualifications do not assure quality of workmanship.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

Dear founder of viXra,

Open peer review would certainly be valuable. However, would it save the world?

Eckard

Hi Philip,

Your essay is pure gold and I really do hope that you'll win this contest. I agree with Eckard ("However, would it save the world?") but never the less, you are showing the right path!

I'll give you 2 in binary format ;-)

Sorry about that! I just wanted to show a proper scale for your piece. I didn't imply that you should do the same. I know, based on last year's contest, that here is some collusion ongoing but that doesn't do any good for those involved in it.

Pushing poor essays into the final only makes it easier for those actually good pieces to gain top positions!

Being not even a public reviewer of the claim that something will save the world, I feel somewhat amused by titles like Bee's that remind me of a self-ironic song in German "Nur mal kurz die Welt retten" (My translation: I will just save the world in a few minutes).

I think I understand and largely support your approach. "Decisions based on academic research rather than the biases of public opinion" sounds prudent.

Nonetheless Alfred Nobel guided me to slightly different conclusions. Is steering really always a question of decision making or did the invention of dynamite per se steer the history?

Experienced WWII caused me to ask for what went wrong. May we blame single decisions or were patriotism, tin soldiers, revenge propaganda, etc. already before WWI among the true reasons?

What about nuclear fusion, I wonder how many participants of the contest supported the hope for cold fusion on the basis of most likely just fabricated experimental results. I heard trustworthy comments that spoke of pathologic science. I will not invest a single Cent into something where the promise is huge for decades while there is obviously no realistic chance of true success. Instead of supporting illusions or risky for nature technologies I would prefer looking for feasible mechanisms of birth control worldwide. This will face fierce resistance by those many who are hoping to benefiting from economic growth, personal, religious, or national power, or who rely on funding.

If groups of cherished theories or idolized experts went wrong and must be abandoned then this will also require more than a public peer-review.

I appreciate FQXi as a forum that allows to put and pursue really foundational questions.

Elsewhere we have some public self-declared peers.

Sincerly,

Eckard Blumschein

The great thing about this essay is that it is focused and we can all agree that it is addressing an important practical problem and its potential solution which can contribute to humanity's steering. That said, it does not address the question posed directly.

Supposing you could somehow fix the peer-review process in academia, would that solve the problem of steering the future? Is there a lack of scientific consensus which is the main reason for big problems facing humanity? Or are we imagining that "open peer review" will somehow translate to social and political consensus - and action?

Also, I think the most telling lines of the essay are these:

"How do you let anyone have their say while still maintaining an orderly process and arriving at an unbiased conclusion?

The answer to that is not yet clear..."

If I were intending to be completely snarky I would leave it at that, but the essay continues:

...but there is hope that letting anyone have their say is not necessarily a recipe for disaster. Wikipedia is a good example of a system that allows anyone to contribute."

I address this also in my essay; the experience of Wikipedia has shown that, in fact, in order to maintain order it is necessary to have a hidden if not invisible clique of editors who exercise power over ordinary participants. Also, Wikipedia is not making decisions for steering humanity. Users go to it because they find it useful. On controversial issues, it aims for a balanced and reasonably comprehensive presentation of views, so partisans have no real incentive to opt out, which would only mean no representation at all.

Also, Wikipedia is not a completely convergent process. If you don't like what's on one page about your topic, you can invent a new one that frames it differently; then maybe you will have to fight off an attempt to merge, but you might win something in that battle.

But you are right that another key to making Wiki work is the establishment of rules and conventions. The seemingly rigid and (relative to other web content) impoverished presentation is actually very important. These are features that can work in open peer-review within academic communities with a shared interest in the advancement of knowledge, but it is less clear that it solves the problem of steering humanity where interests and strongly held viewpoints conflict and battles are fought often violently.

Bravo Philip your excellent ideas have been solidly backed by your excellent deeds. When arXiv accepted two of my papers because an academic friend had sponsored them, but then rejected my next paper because I submitted it myself, I felt demeaned and cheated . So when I discovered your viXra archive it was a godsend - no anonymous people judging my ideas because I worked independently. So again thank you for that and keep viXra alive!

Open peer review need not be restricted to scientific research. As you suggest it can be made part of the system of governance at many level. The other day I had found that a nice wide green walkway had been decreed off- limits to cyclists. This in a city where mothers often use bicycles to carry children to their many after school cram schools. Or nurseries. Had they asked the populace to decide who uses the walkway things might have been different.

Incidentally this fqxi system of peer rating is not open - we do not know who rated a particular essay and more importantly why....

With best wishes

Vladimir