[emotionalcode]

No, I mean, that there is some probability that someone intelligent within the system is manipulating the infrastructure of the peer review system for an advantage.

I don't understand why I was downvoted for asking a question. I just meant to imply that there must exist some middle infrastructure, and I do not believe that it is a trivial problem to solve.

Source: I studied computer security systems that attempted to automate the flow of information to maintain security level thresholds on information types. When code 'touches' other code, meaning that it uses code with information at one security level to reason about code with information at another security level, unless you are particularly careful in the structure and organization of the code, information can leak out, structures can be manipulated, rules can be broken.

I am not saying scientists are unethical, I am saying they are human and prone to emotional reaction occasionally before objectivity (unless they are perfect). Combining information inference, intelligence, and an understanding of the flaws of an automated system; they are capable of 'accidentally' tweaking those things in their favor. It's not in the interest of science when this happens, and it requires a substantial amount of real intelligence to moderate. It's basically 'accidental bias'.

[yrochat]

About the possible flaws in the reviewing process, the open-access publisher Frontiers (recently acquired by the Nature Publishing Group) proposes to reveal the names of the reviewers once the paper has been accepted, since they take part in the writing process:

"Frontiers is striving to remove any bias from the review process and acknowledge the reviewers for the significant contributions in improving the paper. To guarantee the most transparent and objective reviews, the identities of review editors remain anonymous during the review period. Only in case an article is accepted do their names appear on the published manuscript, without exceptions. However, if for any reasons a review editor withdraws during any stage of the review process, his/her name will not be disclosed." [Source : http://www.frontiersin.org/Design/pdf/ReviewGuidelines.pdf]

[p4bl0]

See also these two texts from the Open Scholar initiative:

- Independent Peer-Review Initiative http://www.openscholar.org.uk/independent-peer-review-initia...

- Academic self-publishing: a not-so-distant-future http://www.openscholar.org.uk/academic-self-publishing-a-not...

[emotionalcode]

Why do you think peer accountability will work? This is a genuine question of mine; please do not infer ulterior intention.

[Luc]

> I don't understand why I was downvoted for asking a question.

Because your question, in the context of the thread, appeared to imply you think Elsevier and co. are doing something essential, in return for their 40% profit margins resulting in billions (!) of profit per year. Taken by itself it's an interesting question.

[emotionalcode]

I don't really know, honestly. When groups are arguing between opposing world views, all of which can appear equally likely depending on data selection, I find that absolutely frightening that our current scientific process of peer review can not help us tell our heads from our asses. Or it does so often enough, that it's doing a very good job at keeping the bulk of knowledge stable. Science can be frightening.

Personally, I think it might take a lot more time than I've been alive to come close to a solution. I don't feel comfortable having an opinion on this, but I'm fine having questions. I don't intend to make implications with my questions, they are not consciously intentionally leading.

[Luc]

It's only been about 15 generations since the time of Galileo. I think science'll muddle through even if a couple of generations are wasted on dead-ends along the way.

[emotionalcode]

There's stuff you expect (or have read, heard, thought about, observed) science to be about, and there's stuff you don't expect science to be about. The stuff you don't expect science to be about is the stuff that concerns me.

I don't know whether I can convey the change in understandings I've had about science since leaving academia. I don't want it to be typical, nor do I want it to be atypical in that the definition of atypical is dependent on the opposite of what is typical.