CrosbyStreet
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
This question concerns scientific peer-review. It is quite usual for a science journal to protect the status quo by using the peer-review system. Peer-review system is necessary but that type of protection is abusing it. Needless to say that advancement in science cannot be achieved by organized maintenance of this kind of biased, dishonest and abusive kind of peer-review. Unfortunately, the academic science nowadays is becoming more and more hermetic, significantly aided by deformed peer-review, which enables the perpetration of wrong ideas to be presented as real science. If some additional layers of accountability aren't found, outside of said hermeticism, there will no hope for science, especially physics, to be rescued from the dead-end it finds itself in nowadays.
It is highly unusual to seek relief through the legal system to resolve the above problem, despite the fact that it does seem to fall into the realm of violation of civil rights, freedom of speech and discrimination. Unfortunately, that problem has grown to such an extent that the time has come to seek some unusual, non-traditional ways, to bring back reason and scientific method to the realm of science, for its own benefit and progress, as well as, for the benefit and progress of the society as a whole.
Thus, I'd like to explore what legal options could there be, realizing that such option may be new to jurisprudence as well.
I'd start with my layman's idea that probably there would be a way to have a law firm submit to a science journal your scientific paper in your name, having all the follow-up correspondence with the journal go through that firm. This very much resembles the modern way of submitting, say, a song to a music producing company but I'm not sure it has ever been done in science. One difference is that in science most typically the author is either not paid anything or is even asked to pay for the publishing of his or her work, unlike a musician who expects to be paid for it and extract further revenue from it. This lack of business perspective, I guess, has made scientific creativity uninteresting for law firms to get involved. Personal gain lacking, scientific pursuit, however, can sometimes be of significant societal impact and preventing its dissemination may harm society substantially. Therefore, I feel that correcting the functioning of such dissemination needs to be looked into.
Involvement of a law firm as an intermediary between the author and the scientific journal will make the author and his or her arguments be taken seriously and not be treated as some weak party under the control of an almighty publisher, holding all the possible control of what is and what isn't in science, resorting sometimes to ludicrous arguments to avoid publishing the unwanted, no matter how correct an needed by science, text.
Thus, science journals, exercising the practice of outright ignoring a submission, will be on alert that such ignoring may not remain without consequences.
Also, it will hardly be as easy as it is today for a science journal to reject a paper for publication with ridiculous arguments such as "the theory whose validity the author doubts has already been tested and all the tests have confirmed its validity". Such journals have to receive a serious reminder, a reminder that will not only pass from one ear and out the other, that contribution to science isn't contained in confirming a given theory but is in finding examples, if any, that contradict it. A law firm will remind in no uncertain terms this fundamental requirement of scientific research and may bring about legal actions (what exact legal actions?) to restore the correct scientific approach of the journal.
While, when it regards a journal enjoying public funding, above restoring of things may seem easier, one question which may appear is, is an entirely private journal entitled to publish anything it pleases, including stupid things. Intuitively, should the journal be in violation of the general principles of the US Constitution, one may answer in the positive. However, it would be trickier to answer that question if the privately owned science journal in question has a vast impact on society.
With the above I tried to scratch the surface of the problem of proper dissemination of knowledge (by proper I mean through channels which society takes a note of because they are backed by the authorities of the day; setting up one's own journal and publishing in it won't cut the mustard). My question is what are, from a legal perspective, the possibilities of such interaction with scientific journals through intermediary law firm and what further measures may be taken by the law firm when the principles of science are unilaterally violated by scientific journals, which their editors themselves being corrupt, use as a tool corrupt peer-review?
This question concerns scientific peer-review. It is quite usual for a science journal to protect the status quo by using the peer-review system. Peer-review system is necessary but that type of protection is abusing it. Needless to say that advancement in science cannot be achieved by organized maintenance of this kind of biased, dishonest and abusive kind of peer-review. Unfortunately, the academic science nowadays is becoming more and more hermetic, significantly aided by deformed peer-review, which enables the perpetration of wrong ideas to be presented as real science. If some additional layers of accountability aren't found, outside of said hermeticism, there will no hope for science, especially physics, to be rescued from the dead-end it finds itself in nowadays.
It is highly unusual to seek relief through the legal system to resolve the above problem, despite the fact that it does seem to fall into the realm of violation of civil rights, freedom of speech and discrimination. Unfortunately, that problem has grown to such an extent that the time has come to seek some unusual, non-traditional ways, to bring back reason and scientific method to the realm of science, for its own benefit and progress, as well as, for the benefit and progress of the society as a whole.
Thus, I'd like to explore what legal options could there be, realizing that such option may be new to jurisprudence as well.
I'd start with my layman's idea that probably there would be a way to have a law firm submit to a science journal your scientific paper in your name, having all the follow-up correspondence with the journal go through that firm. This very much resembles the modern way of submitting, say, a song to a music producing company but I'm not sure it has ever been done in science. One difference is that in science most typically the author is either not paid anything or is even asked to pay for the publishing of his or her work, unlike a musician who expects to be paid for it and extract further revenue from it. This lack of business perspective, I guess, has made scientific creativity uninteresting for law firms to get involved. Personal gain lacking, scientific pursuit, however, can sometimes be of significant societal impact and preventing its dissemination may harm society substantially. Therefore, I feel that correcting the functioning of such dissemination needs to be looked into.
Involvement of a law firm as an intermediary between the author and the scientific journal will make the author and his or her arguments be taken seriously and not be treated as some weak party under the control of an almighty publisher, holding all the possible control of what is and what isn't in science, resorting sometimes to ludicrous arguments to avoid publishing the unwanted, no matter how correct an needed by science, text.
Thus, science journals, exercising the practice of outright ignoring a submission, will be on alert that such ignoring may not remain without consequences.
Also, it will hardly be as easy as it is today for a science journal to reject a paper for publication with ridiculous arguments such as "the theory whose validity the author doubts has already been tested and all the tests have confirmed its validity". Such journals have to receive a serious reminder, a reminder that will not only pass from one ear and out the other, that contribution to science isn't contained in confirming a given theory but is in finding examples, if any, that contradict it. A law firm will remind in no uncertain terms this fundamental requirement of scientific research and may bring about legal actions (what exact legal actions?) to restore the correct scientific approach of the journal.
While, when it regards a journal enjoying public funding, above restoring of things may seem easier, one question which may appear is, is an entirely private journal entitled to publish anything it pleases, including stupid things. Intuitively, should the journal be in violation of the general principles of the US Constitution, one may answer in the positive. However, it would be trickier to answer that question if the privately owned science journal in question has a vast impact on society.
With the above I tried to scratch the surface of the problem of proper dissemination of knowledge (by proper I mean through channels which society takes a note of because they are backed by the authorities of the day; setting up one's own journal and publishing in it won't cut the mustard). My question is what are, from a legal perspective, the possibilities of such interaction with scientific journals through intermediary law firm and what further measures may be taken by the law firm when the principles of science are unilaterally violated by scientific journals, which their editors themselves being corrupt, use as a tool corrupt peer-review?
Last edited:
