Open Peer Review to Save the World by Philip Gibbs

Philip,

Thank you for a very interesting essay. I found your list of biases particularly to the point, because I agree with you that finding ways to minimize the effect of biases (by improving peer review and by other means) is crucial if we want humanity to optimally steer the future. Being aware of biases and actively fighting them is certainly one of the main goals that education should aim at, especially in the futurocentric perspective that I propose in my essay.

Good luck in the contest!

Marc

Dear Phillip

It is said that nowadays we are in the age of information just because by clicking we have access to whatever we like, good or bad. The fact that we have access won't change the perception of quality in research. There is a list of more than 200 new open-access journals in physics with a terrible reputation. People who seek quality in research will go to places were good quality is published, the others will be ignored, simply because there is too much information that one cannot handle it all and visit all websites. I'm not saying that all publications in vixra are not good, I'm just saying that vixra does not guarantee a minimum of quality. So, there is no big difference between vixra and any other blog find in the internet.

Please take a look at this manuscript: http://vixra.org/pdf/1405.0315v1.pdf. Look at the graphs, presentation, etc. Perhaps this manuscript has something interesting to say but the quality speaks for itself. This is not science. A professional will never publish a paper like this one. When arxiv started to receive this kind of manuscripts, its quality and reputation started to reduce, that's why arxiv implemented filters. Arxiv maintains good quality standards as a repository. This is the great difference between vixra and arxiv.

You: Your old idea that people need to have qualifications to have a say is a dying one.

I don't think so. One cannot expect that a layman who doesn't know basic calculus solve a problem that requires knowledge in differential geometry or higher mathematics. I'm afraid your example does not apply to physics or any other science.

You: The UK government... ...it does not matter.

I'm sure a layperson will not win the prize.

You: They are part of the old paradigm and if they cant find a new business model based on the new one they will die. Open access, Open publication and Open peer review are the future.

I think, there is no "new one" at all. Open access is not well established yet and I don't think it will. It has shown to be worse than traditional publication and it is jeopardizing science reputation by publishing bad quality science. Lets see if you are right in the following years!

Best Regards

Israel

Dear Tihamer,

The group Nicolas Bourbaki claimed having made set theory the basis of all mathematics; and they were accepted in textbooks and by teachers of mathematics.

Claude Shannon has been known and respected for information theory. However, his view on past and future as well as Alfred Nobel's view on mathematics were at odds with current tenets. See my previous essay too.

When I wrote outsider, I didn't mean the opposite of insider but someone outside of the mainstream.

What about your three suggested crucial technologies, I think your optimistic approach is better than pessimism. You might just be a bit too optimistic. Anyway, we both will perhaps agree on that technology is not our fate, not our destiny but rather a challenge to everybody everywhere: Let's contribute to the preconditions for intelligent and satisfying life in peace as intended by Alfred Nobel!

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Phillip,

You discuss the topic of open peer review thoroughly, and while important, I do not think it is enough. This is because many policy makers suffer from one or more of your listed (and other) biases, and they make the decisions that steer humanity, for better or worse. Unless you address their biases, merely creating a pool of 'objectively true' information is of limited use. Consider the matter of climate change.

I suggest three further biases to be important: Attention bias: There is just so much data to attend to that critical information is often overlooked. We tend to attend to things we attend to. Deciding what to attend to, deciding what is important, is often the most difficult decision. Policy makers often attend to the concerns of their supporters, rather than the objective demands of reality, yet which is more important, and critical?

This suggests another bias: Investment bias: You tend to believe what you are paid to believe.

And a third is locality bias: You tend to believe what is near and immediate is more important than what is distant in space and/or time. This bias must be overcome if we are to develop truly global solutions.

Hmm: Checking the WEB shows a more complete list of biases to be quite long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biases_in_judgment_and_decision_making

but this merely emphasizes your main point.

In a democracy, we are supposedly all peers, but a democratic system of review has its own failings. Some sort of filtration and transformation of data and information is necessary. Imperfections in the evaluation system should be sought out and corrected, and complaints addressed. And we should all do our part to help.

A very readable and coherent essay, though.

Good luck in the contest.

Sincerely,

Charles

Hi Philip,

I just wanted to reach out and say thank you for the consideration you put into your work. I, too, am an advocate for transparency in the sciences (whether institutional or otherwise), as anything else is obstructive to the sort of progress humanity may need, in order to evade the many existential threats you were attentive enough to mention. Thank you for that, and for an otherwise very well-written, and well-thought-out discussion (both in your essay and throughout the comments that followed it).

Wishing you well in the competition, and hoping to hear from you soon.

Best regards.

=)

Dear Philip,

I've commented on your fine essay above, but as you were favorably inclined to Douglas Singleton's application of a physics metaphor to the problem, I'd like to again invite you to read my essay, which also applies physics ideas to the topic.

Congratulations for continuing to stay near the top of the rankings.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Philip,

Thanks for your essay. I agree that bias is a persistent and important problem, and, as an academic author myself, have seen how it plays out.

I think you might find some connections with my essay on computationally intelligent personal dialogic agents. I developed a prototype with a grant from the National Science Foundation as part of research on approaches to team training. One of the goals of the dialogic system is to reduce bias, and I have shown some positive results in terms of group outcomes in problem solving.

I'd appreciate a rating, if you can do that, since I am a bit short on ratings.

Thanks,

Ray

Dear Peter,

I'm doubtful that one could effectively make an author anonymous to the referees: I'm afraid that in the vast majority of the cases the identity of most authors would be completely apparent to the referees from what they write. However, young or first-time authors would be guaranteed fair treatment by such a system, and also it would guarantee that, if the editors decides to reject your paper before sending it through peer-review, they had to read the paper (or at least the abstract!) and couldn't reject a paper just on the basis of the author's reputation. What do you think?

best,

Flavio

Hello Philip, May I post a short, but sincere critique of your essay? I'd ask you to return the favour. Here's my policy on that. - Mike

Hello Dr. Gibbs,

Thank you for your essay proposal based on open peer review. I concur with you that the human mind is fraught with biases which cloud our judgement. While the wisdom of the crowd can sometimes be shown to be equivalent in predictive power to an expert, I am not sure how well it can be applied to the scientific endeavor. Even if we had a broader scientific consensus than we do currently, I'm not sure we will ever achieve a complete consensus, nor does it imply that a correct course of action would be chosen in regards to that consensus. I would like to believe otherwise, but I don't have that much faith in the rationality of my fellow humans.

Regardless of my criticisms, though, I do believe that the academic and scientific endeavors require updates to their operational mechanisms, especially where elimination of bias is concerned and verification and accuracy can be improved. These improvements certainly wouldn't hurt any future I would choose for our species.

Thanks,

Mark

Mark,

I believe open peer review is an important part of business incubation. Much more than just on-subject discussion results, leading to moments of inspiration being produced in other diverse subject areas. Types of inspirations resulting might involve: diverse related products to develop, marketing insights, ethical concerns, synergy with other research ...

Open peer review is very much a part of Staged peer review with business incubation tools.

Staged Peer Review & Business Incubator

But unless something actively and physically is pursued, of what use is this discussion; or any discussion ...

Contributors here have diverse perspectives, and most, obviously thoughtful people. Therefore, everything presented in these essays has the potential to contribute productively toward any overall goal; within staged constraints. A person with a passion to provoke anarchy is most likely going to disrupt product development and make it impossible to produce a product to fund further efforts. However, that same anarchist is an important controls feedback function for philosophical discussions about ethics related to what should be considered about the uses and abuses of the product when developed.

Most business people want to jump onto a path that most directly provides them with the greatest return on investment. The problem is that without negative feedback the initial business resources are used up before sustainable systems can be put in place to establish a stable AND sustainable cash flow. As an example, the lowest risk investment on average is a franchise, but only one in 20 franchises become sustainable. The diverse types of influences on a business start-up takes time and a slow trickling of resources so that unforeseen influences can be characterized and incorporated into the business control systems. But meetings and efforts without useful outcomes is wasted resources and undeveloped opportunities.

The following was a national headline for the James-Rivers Paper Company journal. Related to unproductive meetings without an Action-Item Log and related Action-Item Worksheets to capture and track meeting productivity:

"If you are going to listen, do something" ~Thomas Dunn

Example of Action Item Log

Philip,

I hope the new deadline allows you to get to mine. I do understand if QM turns you off, it would do anybody, but unification is important enough to our future to peek at a logical version. I've condensed the solution in the last few posts of my blog. The experiment (end notes) allowed comprehension by all ages down to 11!

As you're aware I feel both our essays should be a bit higher, but as we also know, the judges take no account of peer score places. I'm interested in all viewpoints in any case and would respect yours.

Best of luck in the final judging anyway.

Peter

Mark,

Vladimir,

I believe open peer review is an important part of business incubation. Much more than just on-subject discussion results, leading to moments of inspiration being produced in other diverse subject areas. Types of inspirations resulting might involve: diverse related products to develop, marketing insights, ethical concerns, synergy with other research ...

Open peer review is very much a part of Staged peer review with business incubation tools.

Staged peer Review & Business Incubator

But unless something actively and physically is pursued, of what use is this discussion; or any discussion ...

Meetings: Pandering waste of time, or productive asset

Contributors here have diverse perspectives, and most, obviously thoughtful people. Therefore, everything presented in these essays has the potential to contribute productively toward any overall goal; within staged constraints. A person with a passion to provoke anarchy is most likely going to disrupt product development and make it impossible to produce a product to fund further efforts. However, that same anarchist is an important controls feedback function for philosophical discussions about ethics related to what should be considered about the uses and abuses of the product when developed.

Most business people want to jump onto a path that most directly provides them with the greatest return on investment. The problem is that without negative feedback the initial business resources are used up before sustainable systems can be put in place to establish a stable AND sustainable cash flow. As an example, the lowest risk investment on average is a franchise, but only one in 20 franchises become sustainable. The diverse types of influences on a business start-up takes time and a slow trickling of resources so that unforeseen influences can be characterized and incorporated into the business control systems. But meetings and efforts without useful outcomes is wasted resources and undeveloped opportunities.

The following was a national headline for the James-Rivers Paper Company journal. Related to unproductive meetings without an Action-Item Log and related Action-Item Worksheets to capture and track meeting productivity:

"If you are going to listen, do something" ~Thomas Dunn

Action Item Log and Action Item Worksheet with summary of utilization

Scroll down to Project Management section

Hi,

I've enjoyed your very interesting essay.

While I agree that current closed-peer review has a lot of issues (my pet peeve is single blind refereeing), I am not sure open peer-review -- at least the way you suggested it to be -- is the solution. You cited BICEP2 "open peer review", and being a participant of the whole social-media dissection of the paper, the whole process was messy and more often than not, all the 9 biases (especially bandwagon and confirmation) reared their ugly heads up. It led to misinformation (e.g. was BICEP2 keck array cross correlation with 100 or 150 Ghz? ). One of the main goal of open peer review -- everybody should have a voice -- led to basically more noise than signal in the ensuing "discussion".

Even worse, one of the ills of "closed expert peer review" -- loud voices of authority from august institutions, instead of being silenced by the noisy (in the signal-to-noise sense) crowd, grew even louder. Now everybody cites the words of Prof XX from Ivy Institution YY, not because she is right, but because she is who she is. Of course, Prof XX had tried to disentangled stuff signal from the noise, and actually got wrong information (because it's so noisy), and ended up amplifying misinformation. Harnessing the wisdom of the masses also harnessed the noise that comes with it.

The BICEP 2 "open peer review" via social media was conducted among basically highly qualified cosmologists -- not the general public. And the BICEP experience at least taught me that "wow that's messy". The whole experience has an extremely useful side-effect -- it provide rapid dissemination of knowledge and data, and personally it forced me to learned a lot of stuff to follow up and understand the discussion. But it provided no proper "review". Personally, even though I gave several technical talks on the BICEP2 results to several groups of colleagues, I provided zero input into the "review" part, i.e. I was not acting as an expert, because frankly I do not have the expertise There are very few experts in this world who has the ability to peer review a technical work like BICEP2, and I am happy to let them peer review it on my behalf.

And then I will use my own judgement to decide whether I believe their work -- because peer review does not automatically imply "correctness". We, as consumers of the whole scientific peer-review process, have the responsibility to use our heads to decide for ourselves and not follow the loudest voices of the authorities. Or the silent voice of the secret peer reviewer.

Good luck with the contest!

Best,

Eugene

Dear Philip,

With respect to your question, "Could a deadly virus sweep round the world in days wiping out billions of people?", I would like share some of my perspectives:

Virus always depends on the genome of living cells for their replications and causal for Horizontal gene transfer that effects the propagation of tagged radioactive isotopes through gene transfer.

As per ECSU paradigm, intrinsic ionising radiation by radioactive isotopes is causal for the modifications in the genomes.

This implies that the increase of radioactive isotopes in the food web by Humanity is causal for the massive alterations in the genomes of the biosphere, causing degradation and collapse of the bio-systems; if not regulated.

Thus 'Open Peer Review' is to be with more on healthcare rather than with other disciplines of science, that is already existing and mounding; as healthcare is the core of Humanity.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

This is posted by me only, regretting for the technical error.

Jayakar

Hi Phil,

Congrats for this fantastic Essay which discusses a issue that I think to be fundamental. Here are my comments/questions:

1) The problem of the peer review process is serious and it is directly connected with the issue of freedom in science. This is a controversial issue. Although I work essentially within mainstream physics, I criticize some points of the same mainstream physics and I am all in favour of being open minded about alternatives, but they must be properly formulated and plausible scientific proposals. Freedom in science is a good think, but endorsing crackpot nonsenses is evil instead.

2) The issue that "the ones who decide the truth have self-interests driven by the funding that supports them" is sadly what govern "scientific politics".

3) I think that various "Bias" are consequence of economic interests.

4) I am not sure that Higgs boson has been really detected.

5) I agree with your point on energy conservation in general relativity but I think a clarification is needed. Based on Einstein Equivalence Principle, energy is coordinate dependent in general relativity. But, when we fix the coordinate system, energy conservation works.

6) I think that the importance of citations in determining the ultimate importance of a research work is largely overestimated.

7) The issue that "it is common for good papers to be rejected by top journals" sometimes is extremely ridiculous. I know of papers rejected by a top journal for which, after published by another journal, the authors obtained the Nobel Prize in physics...

8) The issue that "the UK government spent £580 million on the drug Tamiflu to combat flu epidemics, only to learn that the research was flawed and not properly checked" is only one of a big number. In fact, the problem of "scientific politics" becomes dramatic when it concerns medicine because it interacts with people's health. I think that "mainstream medicine" is completely governed by pharmaceutical companies which have interest in nursing people rather than in recovering. This is terrible and shameful.

9) I strongly endorse your 6 basic principles for a new peer-review.

10) I appreciate your viXra website and sometimes I submit my papers to it. On the other hand, in open archives there is the opposite problem to see published crackpot papers together with good ones.

As I previously wrote, I find this Essay fantastic. Thus, I am going to give you an high rate accordingly.

I hope you will find the time to read, comment and rate my Essay (Maybe you remember my pioneering work on this issue was originally rejected by arXiv. I discussed this issue with you 3 years ago. Thus, I originally submitted it in viXra. Arxiv accepted it only after is acceptance by JHEP).

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.