Reflecting on what the Discovery Institute has learned after fifty peer-reviewed ID papers, David Klinghoffer writes about the pervasive claims on the Internet that there are no peer-reviewed ID papers (Evolution News & Views, February 8, 2012). The claims will probably continue to riff off each other’s authority. Many people need to say: “Not a single peer-reviewed paper!” for the sound effect alone.
The no-design people are building their cocoon world, where you, nature, and reality don’t belong. (And you – and we – are hardly the biggest part of what doesn’t belong.)
Meanwhile, Casey Luskin asks, so what good is peer review? (Evolution News & Views, February 10, 2012),
Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus and Newton’s Principia. Einstein’s original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review.1 Indeed, Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper.
Moreover, important scientific work has not uncommonly been initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals. As a 2001 article in Science observed, “Mention ‘peer review’ and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory.”2 Indeed, an article in the journal Science Communication by Juan Miguel Campanario notes that top journals such as “Science and Nature have also sometimes rejected significant papers,” and in fact “Nature has even rejected work that eventually earned the Nobel Prize.”3 In an amusing letter titled “Not in our Nature,” Campanario reminds the journal of four examples where it rejected significant papers:
Sure. Getting past peer review just means that the in crowd doesn’t need you to fail just now.
But we doubt that they intended to let it get to fifty. Big oops.
Follow UD News at Twitter!