|
"Peer" Criterion
IntroductionAlong with public free-for-all contributed documents, as well as editor reviewed documents, PES aims to have refereed documents that have received approval by a panel of peers. By "peers" we mean those who are qualified professionals in the relevant area of expertise, whether or not they are recognized or known in the field in general. Most peers will be qualified as such in a number of fields. By publishing the name of the reviewers and their comments with the review they provide, holding them publicly responsible for their assessment, much of the non-scientific bias can be eliminated. CriterionThe most obvious and compelling criterion of a qualified peer would be an inventor or inventor's assistant that has built a novel working device very similar to the topic of concern. Conversely, if such a person has a narrow focus, it closes their minds to possible variations from their design, and though intellectually they are qualified, emotionally they are disqualified. Jealousy of a competing idea so similar to one's own can likewise disqualify one from the ability to provide an unbiased review. Hence, the most qualified by knowledge are sometimes going to be disqualified for reasons irrelevant to science. The next level of qualification would be of those who have worked with working devices similar to the topic of concern, either replicating them, or testing them thoroughly, or characterizing their ranges of performance. Because they are not the originators, they are not as prone to have the non-scientific, emotional biases of the inventor. However, if they are involved to this level, it is likely they have a strong vested interest in the analogous technology, which could taint their objectivity. Someone who has worked as an inventor or assessor of technology that has not yet been made to work, but which is similar to the topic of concern could also qualify as a "peer," though competence is not as obvious when a functioning device has not been attained. Other qualifying criterion will need to be met before the person is considered a peer. As far as qualifying as a peer for the referee process, a rough formula of "approximately 20 non-working devices for one working device" might be applied per the above criterion, as the scope of experience obtained from that many non-fruitful attempts does tend to make of one an expert in what does not work, while also instilling a strong foundation by which to gauge what might work. A less compelling but still adequate criterion for being a "peer" would be if one has been listed as the primary author of at least one peer reviewed book or approximately 10 refereed papers published in areas relevant to the field. Co-authorship might be considered in a rough ratio of about five co-authorships equating to one authorship. These numbers should not be fixed, as other variables such as the length and scope of the book or papers in question. Are they seminal or trivial? One seminal paper authorship or even co-authorship could itself qualify one as a peer in a given area. A still less compelling, and not necessarily adequate criterion would be if one is listed as the author or co-author of non-refereed books or papers. Such a person would need to be "approved" by other peers to qualifying as a peer for a given topic area. Individuals who wish to apply to be a peer reviewer for a given topic area, who do not fit the above criterion, but who think they can present a case to argue their qualification, may do so. A field pioneer does not necessarily automatically qualify as a peer. While they were instrumental in forging the new area of study, they may have had many false paradigms involved. It may be those who follow who are more qualified in the subject. The working device is the ultimate test of the fitness of a theory. See also
Page created by Sterling
D. Allan January 17, 2004 |
|
|
