1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Are science books peer reviewed?
« on: 25/10/2010 08:04:51 »
This is a question for all physicist that live in the modern Internet Age.
I was having discussion with a couple of friends that study physics, and we began to talk about a book written by a specific scientist. The title of the book and the scientist is irrelevent. And during the discussion, one of my friends stated that the book, or some of the infomation is the book was not peer reviewed!
And my statement to my friend, is that you are the peer; did you review the book, you are the peer reviewer.
This person was stating that if it was not published in a popular journal it was not peer reviewed; although they read the book, and consider themselves to be a knowledgeable physicist. My take on this subject, is that in an age when there was no internet and information was not freely flowing; all things prior to 1995. Then there would be a need to publish in a journal, because there would be no way to determine if that information was read by anyone.
But now since there is Amazon.com; anyone can buy a book from an author that did not send his work into a journal for "peer review" and they can write their own review. And if this is followed by others that publish their own review at Amazon.com. If this happens a couple or many times, then in essence this work has just been "Peer Reviewed."
Why in today's modern information age that someone would wait for other people, such as journal with their own hidden agendas, and their own bias, to decide it their work is credible is totally beyond me? If you have somewhat of an understanding of the subject, you are the peer, and you provide your review. This is a peer review.
I think that the "Self Publishing" field is the greatest thing since slice bread, because this represents what a true free thinking and capitalist society truly promotes. To wait for three or four people in a "Journal" to accept or reject your work, is to me what describes a sense of insecurity; and demonstrates that one is stuck in an old world passing by!
This is why new journals are emerging that allow you to post your work in their database, for others to view for free. The owners of those journals have figured out what I am describing. If you are a peer and you review the work. The work has just been "Peer Reviewed!"
I was having discussion with a couple of friends that study physics, and we began to talk about a book written by a specific scientist. The title of the book and the scientist is irrelevent. And during the discussion, one of my friends stated that the book, or some of the infomation is the book was not peer reviewed!
And my statement to my friend, is that you are the peer; did you review the book, you are the peer reviewer.
This person was stating that if it was not published in a popular journal it was not peer reviewed; although they read the book, and consider themselves to be a knowledgeable physicist. My take on this subject, is that in an age when there was no internet and information was not freely flowing; all things prior to 1995. Then there would be a need to publish in a journal, because there would be no way to determine if that information was read by anyone.
But now since there is Amazon.com; anyone can buy a book from an author that did not send his work into a journal for "peer review" and they can write their own review. And if this is followed by others that publish their own review at Amazon.com. If this happens a couple or many times, then in essence this work has just been "Peer Reviewed."
Why in today's modern information age that someone would wait for other people, such as journal with their own hidden agendas, and their own bias, to decide it their work is credible is totally beyond me? If you have somewhat of an understanding of the subject, you are the peer, and you provide your review. This is a peer review.
I think that the "Self Publishing" field is the greatest thing since slice bread, because this represents what a true free thinking and capitalist society truly promotes. To wait for three or four people in a "Journal" to accept or reject your work, is to me what describes a sense of insecurity; and demonstrates that one is stuck in an old world passing by!
This is why new journals are emerging that allow you to post your work in their database, for others to view for free. The owners of those journals have figured out what I am describing. If you are a peer and you review the work. The work has just been "Peer Reviewed!"