Not one to want to give succor to the theists is another place, but here is the concluding paragraph from an article I read recently, (Smith, Richard: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals: J R Soc Med. 2006 April; 99(4): 178–182.)
Quote:
|
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.
|