Open Peer Review to Save the World by Philip Gibbs

Phil,

An interesting paper here, not only showing a far higher proportion of experiments than we realise are falsely based, but then applauding treating the symptoms not the cause;

"In 2005 John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist from Stanford University, caused a stir with a paper showing why, as a matter of statistical logic, the idea that only one such paper in 20 gives a false-positive result was hugely optimistic. Instead, he argued, "most published research findings are probably false."

As he told the quadrennial International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, held this September in Chicago, the problem has not gone away."

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble">2013 Economist article.](https://

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble)

It also refers to the Nature policy.

Peter

Philip,

I would like to see your essay win this year. I am among the many independent researchers, like yourself, that experienced many years of bias. Your essay explained why for 30 years I either received curt rejections from an editorial staff or worse no response from my many attempts to contribute or even dialog. I spent a very enjoyable day reviewing your copious contributions to viXra. Thank you for starting the website. I put some thought into how to set up a peer review process and started to appreciate the difficulties. My motivation has been developing a consistent view of nature and I am concerned about where our valuable future mental resources will be spent. My grandkids will probably love the challenge of understanding as much as I did but I don't want them exposed to processes that limit their potential. We have a lot of challenges ahead and we need a world that stops fighting and wasting resources over trivial differences. I am struck by statements from authors saying that only a small fraction of people even believe in evolution of other basic science. Your statements that a good peer review process might change the future are right on.

Philip,

Wonderful to read your views on the need for Open Peer Review. I have felt this way for a very long time.

We are on the same page.

While you are opening up the world to grow its knowledge, I am working to make this knowledge available to the global public.

I eagerly await your reaction to my essay.

Thank you for your essay

-Ajay

Philip,

"Humanity faces many dangers from climate change and wars to asteroid impacts that could harm our future. Often logical reasoning does not seem to play a strong part in discussions on such subjects and even peer-review is flawed. I contend that the solution is a better system of open peer-review."

Certainly "open peer-review" is a step in the right direction in giving hearings to outside-the-moneyed-box ideas, but currently the problem seems to be money, power and access controls who is heard and who is not heard, and this is becoming global, not just a US characteristic. Without celebrity, power and access and without support by a corporate media, without representation by leaders, it is very difficult to be heard.

Climate change and wars too often fulfill agendas of the most powerful in our world. Their focus is not asteroid dangers, though open discussion in an open-peer-review forum would help. We do need to have the best ideas heard, but they are often drowned out by the oligarchy.

A repository like arXiv can be one part of change but the other part is a common effort by the growing legions of the oppressed whose clarion call need to drown out the monolithic establishment that a relentless conservative effort has already brought about. An equally relentless effort can make reason be heard and reasonable ideas applied.

Unfortunately money and power now rule not ideas or their practical application.

Repositories put me in mind of an academic setting which is becoming more influenced by the privatization movement, too often rendering some academicians compromised as well.

Good ideas and good points but I wonder what catastrophe must befall us before rationality can return. The Great Recession didn't do it. In some ways Wall Street is worse -- We needed WWII and the Depression in the 20th Century to bring the upsurge of the middle class.

What do you think, Phil?

Jim

I read your good article.

I am thinking a new h-index for an article; for example if you ask to some great scientists to give a vote to viXra.org articles (something as "I like" of facebook) in some different field (expert in quantum mechanics, relativity, etc), and there is the possibility to search for good articles in some fields, then the contents of the article is important for some great scientists, or for some expert readers; it is not necessary that the expert work on a new research to vote it, whereas now the citation is made by the same research field.

There may be a new statistical vote (index) that give the quality of the article, with a weighted average from the academic value, and the quality of the publication of the voters.

An acceleration of the diffusion of ideas, in the academic world, can change the world faster.

Dear Dr. Gibbs,

I found reading your essay truly fascinating. I hope you do not mind me making a comment about it.

As you will see if you read my essay REALITY, ONCE, I proved that although Bertrand Russell's perfect abstract proof of 1+1=2 is perfectly abstractly correct, it is a pragmatic impossible actual construct because identical states cannot exist. Everything real and imagined in the real Universe is unique, once. If you read my Theory of Inert Light that I have posted in the Comments section of some of the other essayists at this site, you will note that I have comprehensively refuted Einstein's perfect abstract Special and General Theory of Relativity.

I have submitted papers and book proposals on these two subjects to Science Journals and Science Book Publishers. I have either received no answer, or I have received a snotty answer that that particular Science Journal or Science Book Publisher does not deal in the sort of science my paper or book proposal was supposedly about.

It is only by the grace of The Foundational Questions Institute that my essay has ever been published at all. It is now being pre-judged fair and square by my peers,

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Dear Philip,

You are right on the spot with this essay. I must agree probably with everything you said, about how the peer review is done, and how should it be done, and how this can make the difference in the fate of humanity. I think I understand better the reasons why you are investing so much care in supporting open publishing and open peer review, when you could comfortably have a more "mainstream" trajectory, and ignore the struggling independent researchers. In relation to open peer review, you may be interested in this blog, from a very involved mathematician I know. I also like the thorough classification of various types of bias. I think your essay is a very down-to-earth example of applied critical thinking and freedom, about which I merely theorize in my essay.

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Dr Gibbs,

Interesting essay.

You say: "The hardest part of open peer-review will be to design a system of unbiased evaluation."

Given your list of biases it does follow that the best test of non-bias is when ALL THOSE to whom ultimately a communication is addressed judge it to be non-biased. Such judgement must be ever a work in progress. But it is in human nature that once it finds you DO NEED its endorsement to survive then naturally it wants to dissent (even as a lobby group) simply to assert influence. And then you (the gate keeper) are in danger of seeking to placate in other to remain relevant.

So then your question remains THE question:

"How do you let anyone have their say while still maintaining an orderly process and arriving at an unbiased conclusion?" and more importantly, I say, how do you manage not to enthrone some form of mediocrity.

It seems to me the success of Wikipedia is a very good example of the relevance of your argument. Personally, I still wonder how come Wikipedia works so well. It is probably because it tries to MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS but leaves its OWN positions as ever a work-in-progress; same tenet the scientific method is aimed to be. That said, it still is important to study why or how Wikipedia actually comes to work.

Given the significance of science presently in steering humanity your angle of essay is a most crucial and practical one. By extension if we can find a way of "wiki-editing" our influence/votes on governance then we have a new improved form of democracy! This is how constructive revolution should happen; one practice at a time!

Meanwhile, how about some open peer-review here . Strictly a review; no being nice!

Thanks again for this essay.

Bests,

Chidi

Hi Philip,

your essay seems to be very popular. It is well written and a pleasure to read and I think you are supporting a good cause.I can't help thinking, since you raise the issue of bias, that being founder of the viXra.org e-print archive has greatly influenced your interpretation of the essay question. As you point out though Daniel Kahnman reminds us that we are all prone to many different kinds of bias. Allan Savory:How to green the worlds deserts and reverse climate change This guy is someone already attempting to steer the future, having learned from his own mistake. I'm sorry'in my book' there are bigger issues than peer review. Good essay nontheless. Good luck, Georgina

It is also true that there has been a lot of research giving solutions to problems but the solutions are not implemented. For example, there is pandemic vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D deficiency is linked to some internal cancers and osteoporosis. "Vitamin D deficiency: a worldwide problem with health consequences". Michael F Holick and Tai C Chen, Am J Clin Nutr vol. 87 no. 4 , April 2008 Ironically probably in part exacerbated by the pushing of "sun safe practices" to avoid skin cancer. Night time light exposure is also linked to increased risk of some internal cancers."Blue light has a dark side', Harvard Health Publications, May 2012

Further research and peer review will not prevent cancers from those causes but public information broadcasts, or other kinds of outreach, on the increased risk of night time blue light exposure and vitamin D deficiency from lack of sufficient sun exposure would help people make lifestyle choices that reduce their cancer risk. Why don't we all have lights that change wavelength output through out the day? Why aren't we all informed that working late under fluorescent lighting in front of a bright computer screen is increasing cancer risk?

I'm not disagreeing with you, a good peer review system that helps researchers is desirable but it is not the be all and end all.

Hi Philip,

Great essay! I agree with you, open peer review is essential for science, and science is our guide to a better future. However I don't think peer review is the only problem with science. In my essay Improving Science for a Better Future, I try to identify those aspects of science that need improvement and discuss possible solutions; peer review is one of those aspects.

Best regards,

Mohammed

My personal experience is that Wikipedia does not work for the leading edge research to which peer review applies.bbThe editors are founder are too easily manipulated by facile appeals to authority.

Anyway, Phil -- your essay is excellent and thoroughly engaging. We have a lot to learn about the dynamics of self-organization and how to assure that the outcome is kept free and objective.

Great job! I came to it expecting a polemic and instead found a rational argument very hard to refute.

Best,

Tom

Hi Philip,

You have made a compelling case for open peer review, and I especially like your list of biases. I believe if it is not already the case, these, along with a list of logical fallacies and other errors of reasoning, should be required learning before one graduates from high school.

Despite your convincing presentation of the importance of open peer review, I agree with several other commenters that it does not make an entirely convincing case that this is the most pressing problem facing humanity. I think the way to do make your argument would be to show that, analogous to the saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, in the chain from the identification of a pressing problem facing humanity to its ultimate resolution, a weakness in the peer review process can "break" the entire process. I think you implied it, but it could have been developed more explicitly.

I am glad that your essay is attracting a lot of attention and wish you all the best,

Armin

Hi Phillip,

Thanks for a brilliant essay. Your idea would undoubtably be an immense asset to humanity if we could move to a good system of open peer review. I'll be sure to check out your own site viXra! Perhaps the future will hold a better.

Several issues occured to me as I read your excellent paper:

-While we are now luckily aware of many biases, do you think we are making progress in actually reducing them? Peer-review doesn't seem to be sufficient if others in a field suffer the same bias.

-It seems that very few people, even in academia, spend considerable time reducing their own bias (for example by studying bias). Generally they seem most concerned with reducing the bias of others. Do we need 'bias enforcers'? Or is there a peer-to-peer way to motivate bias reduction or filter out the biases?

-In open peer-review, politically awkward topics might attract a flood of biased opinions that result in the weight of peer-review rejecting unpopular but technically correct opinions/papers. Is there a way to reduce this?

-Could open-peer review be vulnerable to manipulation by interest groups? (of course, sometimes traditional methods are)

Lastly I'd like to ask:

-Are you aware of any initiatives with the goal of reducing human bias, not just identifying them? For example an effort to create a 'anti-bias training program'.

Like many others I thoroughly enjoyed reading your paper. Thanks! If you get a chance feel free to check out and rate my own paper:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2050

Dear Philip Gibbs,

I tend to agree with Tomasso's comment above: "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 above our heads, out of reach of our hands or individual brains..."

But what I DO see is the possibility of paradigm shift that will be immensely beneficial for humanity. Such a shift, almost by definition, will be resisted and suppressed in the orthodox world. Here viXra can play a key role.

As do so many others, I thank you for establishing viXra.

It is not specific technical answers provided on viXra so much as a basis for a paradigm shift that will be almost forbidden by the establishment (the academic oligarchy).

One possibility is the suggestion I make at the end of my essay about a shift from having to pay for education toward being paid to learn, with funds and lessons provided by private as well as government sources. There was not space in nine pages to flesh out this suggestion.

The academic oligarchy differs little in character from the wealth oligarchy. Both work hard to maintain their status through control of the rest of us. Those who've climbed the mountain often throw rocks on climbers who might displace them. As you say "the traditional peer review system is very well protected on all sides."

I'm happy to see you in first place and I hope you stay there.

I invite you to read and comment on my essay,

With best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Open Peer Review

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!groupsettings/open-peer-review/information

Steering the future of Humanity as related to physics, based upon open peer review. This is already being done in many forums. I think what you are instead asking is that a group qualified to do peer review, use their skills to peer review publications that in their educational experience are flawed.

I'm speaking from a non-mainstream point of view.

I published a few things on VIXRA, and I do NOT expect the information to be critically considered for contradictions with accepted physics. I believed the relationships I published were significant and that it would inspire others studying related areas.

To ask a mainstream physics person to consider anything outside of mainstream physics is outside of their scope of practice.

A person skilled only in particle physics should not be reviewing quantum physics publications. A chemist should not be reviewing molecular biology. A mainstream physicist should not be reviewing non-mainstream publications.

Open Peer Review across the broad fields of potential peer review is available through public forums like this one.

Open Peer Review

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!groupsettings/open-peer-review/information