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

Chidi, I am glad you are thinking about these things and that we agree about Wikipedia. I think part of the answer for why Wikipedia succeeds is it "No Original Research" rule. It is much easier to keep a check on articles that have to be summaries from reliable sources rather than articles that develop their own new ideas. This is why open peer-review is harder, even of some of the same principles will apply.

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

    Thank you Ross, these are extremely good and important questions. I don't pretend to have all the answers.

    However, I think the antidote to bias is openness. If bias reasoning remains hidden then nothing can be done about it. If people are forced to put their reasoning in the open they will need to be more rational or they can expect to have the bias pointed out.

    You ask if interest groups can manipulate an open system. It depends on how judgments are made. If it is based on simple majority voting then it will not work at all. The system somehow has to identify the unbiased reasoning and go with that. I dont know how to do it but I know it has to be done and I know that being open is the first and perhaps the biggest step.

    Note that being open does not necessarily mean you can't be anonymous. That is a different matter.

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #49

    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

      For pure science the kind of review you mean is fine. I am talking about science that will affect the future of humanity on the time scale of the next few decades. This means climate science, medical research, economics and many other things of that sort.

      In these areas there are often biases driven by financial self interest or political interference. Of course the experts in the field are the main ones to assess the work, but it is essential that they should do so openly. An intelligent person who is not an expert in the field can see when biases are playing a part so they need to be able to make points which the experts may or may not be able to answer.

      I think the pure sciences would also benefit from a more open peer-review system, but that is not the main focus.

      Login to Google at http://www.google.com

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

      I'm attempting to walk on eggs here, so if I say something that sounds confrontational it is not intended.

      Since trade secrets are a fundamental part businesses ensuring their continued profits so they can continue to support their employees, what incentive is there for businesses to expose themselves to risks related to open information?

      Especially since small businesses cannot afford to take other companies to court for IP infringement. A strategic business plan if public can be used to orchestrate a takeover of the company.

      If you track accessible market for a set of products, and the availability of those products, there is a leading/lagging relationship as availability attempts to ramp up to meet demand. This is where profit lives to cover the cost of research and development. Because not too long thereafter competition will produce more for less and occupy the market and drive the small company out of business, or they will be bought out.

      To make open the plans of development shortens significantly the time available to ramp up availability to deliver product to market before competition strips away the opportunity for reasonable profit.

      An example I gave in the essay was the drug Tamiflu on which the UK and US governments have spent a fortune to build a stockpile in case of a deadly flu epedemic. We now learn that according to some the research was flawed and the data was hidden. Should we allow them to keep it hidden to preserve their trade secrets? I think not.

      Much of the important research that is important here is not driven by corporate interests, yet the same problem arises. Remember the big climategate scandal where the data used to produce the hockey stick graph was hidden and later revelations called it into question. Not only does it mean that the research could not be checked but also the aftermath destroyed confidence in climate research altogther making it more difficult to know what the true situation is.

      I am not saying that internal company R and D should be open. It is only when they are legally required to do public research to show that their products are safe and effective that it needs to be open.

      Coalitions already coordinate to further their own interests. Not to participate in competition more effectively, to monopolize through agreement; price fixing.

      Look at the gas prices nation-wide. The cost does not change more than 30 cents a gallon except in states charging considerably more taxes. That is about an 8% variance in a product of many oil companies nation-wide. The variance is actually less because of individual store owner influences.

      This is illegal, but it is broadly being observed.

      To do what you propose requires eliminating corruption first.

      Corruption is defined as "unethical allocation of resources and/or opportunities"

      Top/Down efforts

      Google Search: eliminate all corruption

      Bottom/Up efforts

      ua-kits.com

      Hi Phillip,

      You practiced what you preached. That is enough for me to rate your essay a ten (10).

      Best wishes,

      Leo KoGuan

      Dear Philip Gibbs

      A very practical solution and updates for future .

      Science in general and physics in particular has been and will pay the price for bureaucratic work that way, of course, with the magazine functioning as " the Literature on Physics style " as well so too .

      But the Truth has always existed, so mankind will surely fed up and turned his back on the scientific work was "composed and produced" as style of literature which - now begining to appear increasingly many manifestations .

      " Going against the wind as quickly then will as soon met the storm "

      Best regards - Hải.CaoHoàng

      P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

      10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

      9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

      8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

      7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

      6 - slightly favorable indifference

      5 - unfavorable indifference

      4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

      3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

      2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

      1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

      After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

      The following is a general observation:

      Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

      Dear Phil

      It is fine, that you wrote this essay and gave some useful examples like meteoroid, tamiflu, etc. There it is an analysis of our publication system and a lot of arguments for your claims.

      You gave also good comments, for instance: ''It is much easier to keep a check on articles that have to be summaries from reliable sources rather than articles that develop their own new ideas. This is why open peer-review is harder, even of some of the same principles will apply.'' As a bad consequence, professional researcher reject these amateur ideas instead to find some sophisticated model for analysis of them.

      Your point eight, Normalcy bias, is very similar to my claim for non-zero probability for Amateurs that they will develop a new good theory in basic physics. This is by statistical laws, because Gaussian curve is everywhere different than zero. It is strange to me that leading physicists do not know this, because their understanding of statistics is good.

      It is also written in my fictious essay:

      The next presenter is Phil Gibbs. Many years ago he established his electronic preprint archive viXra [7]. '' I was attacked many times that no one paper appears on my portal which can be useful for science.'' he begins. ''They claim that useful ideas can be given only by professionals, which can publish in arXiv [8], but not by amateurs, which are doing research in free time and they can publish only in viXra. Therefore I counted those useful papers and I made statistics. Yes, such papers exist which brought benefit to science. Still more, it is possible to calculate probability that a professional or amateur paper will be beneficial for science in dependence of time, money, intelligence of a researcher, help at research, and largeness of research group. It is even possible to estimate impact of gender part in the group [9]. Admittedly, amateurs are less intelligent in average than professionals, because professionals go through a larger number of selections. Amateurs have less time and no money for research, except their own money. But probability for correctness of their theories is not zero. On the other side, amateur's theories come across too little arguments for their rejections than professional's ones. Thus their (un)correctness is much less checked. We should know that influential statistical parameters are mainly distributed by Gaussian curves, or at least, probability never falls toward zero.''

      My pdf essay

      My essay entrance

      You provided for the first urgent necessity for amateur researchers, you founded viXra. I hope that you will also read my essay and gave comments about it.

      I hope also that all we will develop some good system of evaluation of the FQXi essays and also viXra papers.