From Einstein’s Disdain to the Turbidite Orthodoxy: How Blind Peer Review Stifles Scientific Progress

Shanmugam argues that while peer review serves as a quality-control mechanism for scientific publishing and grants, it suffers from deep, systemic flaws that hinder innovation and fairness.
He notes that Albert Einstein expressed disdain for peer review, and that the system—often conducted as double-blind review to mask identities—loses the transparency essential to science.

The paper “The Peer-Review Problem: A Sedimentological Perspective” is a 2022 article (published in the Journal of the Indian Association of Sedimentologists, vol. 39, pp. 3–24) by G. Shanmugam, a geologist with extensive experience in process sedimentology and petroleum geology.

Shanmugam argues that while peer review serves as a quality-control mechanism for scientific publishing and grants, it suffers from deep, systemic flaws that hinder innovation and fairness. He draws on the history of the process (tracing it back over a thousand years to Syria and its formalization by the Royal Society of London in the 17th–18th centuries), critiques from prominent editors (e.g., Richard Smith of the British Medical Journal and Richard Horton of The Lancet), and examples from multiple fields. The “sedimentological perspective” comes primarily from the author’s own decades-long publishing record (over 200 peer-reviewed works) and specific controversies in sedimentology, where interpretive paradigms (e.g., around deep-water deposits) have clashed with established views.

He notes that Albert Einstein expressed disdain for peer review, and that the system—often conducted as double-blind review to mask identities—loses the transparency essential to science.

Shanmugam acknowledges that peer review has value as a self-regulating tool but insists secrecy undermines it. He calls for geoscientists to contribute more to the discussion, as issues may be less loudly debated in geology than in biomedicine.

This paper aligns with wider critiques of peer review across sciences:

It can be slow, subjective, prone to bias/groupthink, and poor at catching fraud, while sometimes blocking paradigm shifts. Reforms like open review, post-publication commentary, or preprint servers with community feedback have gained traction elsewhere. In sedimentology, interpretive debates (turbidites vs. debris flows vs. contourites, etc.) highlight how “process sedimentology” benefits from rigorous, transparent scrutiny of evidence rather than deference to anointed models.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Peer-Review Problem: a sedimentological perspective

The Journal of the Indian Association of Sedimentologists, Vol. 39 No. 1 (2022)

G Shanmugam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51710/jias.v39i1.243

The Peer-Review Problem: a sedimentological perspective

Albert Einstein, one of the greatest physicists of all time, had a deep disdain for peer review. The peer-review process, introduced over a thousand years ago in Syria and fully formalized by the Royal Society of London during 1665-1752, is an integral part of quality control in publishing articles and in awarding research grants. However, there are many lingering problems, which include: 1) anointed experts, 2) blind peer reviews, 3) delays, 4) orthodoxy, 5) bias, 6) groupthink, 7) Peer rejection of ideas (including Nobel-Prize winners), 8) inconsistency, 9) politics, 10) fake peer review and plagiarism, 11) “Sham peer review” in the U.S. medical community, 12) settling old scores, 13) online publications, 14) acknowledgements, 15) controversies in geological sciences, and 16) imbalance of peer reviewers in the biomedical research. Transparency, which is the underpinning trait of science journalism, is lost in the secrecy of blind peer review. Under the blind peer review, there are at least eight examples of scientific papers that were rejected before going on to win a Nobel Prize. Furthermore, there are 33 striking cases of peer rejection in science, including the notorious theory of “continental drift” by Alfred Wegener. My own examples of papers in process sedimentology and petroleum geology show that the same manuscript was rejected by one journal, but was accepted by another, suggesting that the blind peer review is obsolete. A solution is to adopt an Open Peer Review (OPR). Barring an open peer review, an alternative path is to publishing the entire peer-review comments and recommended decisions of all reviewers (anonymous and identified) at the end of a paper. This practice not only would force the anonymous reviewer to be objective and accountable but also would allow the entire peer-review process to be transparent.

The Journal of the Indian Association of Sedimentologists (peer reviewed)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Shanmugam lists 16 lingering issues with peer review:

  1. Anointed experts — Reviewers are selected subjectively without standardized qualification.
  2. Blind peer reviews — Secrecy enables bias and fails to fully hide identities (e.g., via self-citations, writing style, track changes, or specific suggestions).
  3. Delays — Reviews often exceed promised timelines (e.g., months instead of 2–3 weeks).
  4. Orthodoxy — Pressure to conform to conventional wisdom stifles new ideas.
  5. Bias — Against certain authors, concepts, negative results, or demographics (e.g., historical gender bias in funding).
  6. Groupthink — Collective resistance to unconventional views.
  7. Peer rejection of groundbreaking ideas — Including papers later tied to Nobel Prizes and major theories.
  8. Inconsistency — The same manuscript can be rejected by one journal and accepted (sometimes without major changes) by another.
  9. Politics — Influences decisions, such as in climate-related topics.
  10. Fake peer review and plagiarism — Fraudulent reviewer accounts or stolen content.
  11. “Sham peer review” — Documented abuses, especially in the U.S. medical community.
  12. Settling old scores — Personal vendettas unrelated to the science.
  13. Online publications — Reduced oversight on some platforms.
  14. Acknowledgements — Difficulty properly crediting anonymous reviewers.
  15. Controversies in geological sciences — Persistent interpretive disputes.
  16. Imbalance of peer reviewers — A small cadre of individuals handles a disproportionate share of reviews (e.g., in biomedicine).

Transparency is repeatedly emphasized as the missing element in blind systems.

How Blind Peer Review Stifles Scientific Progress

The paper “The Peer-Review Problem: A Sedimentological Perspective” is a 2022 article (published in the Journal of the Indian Association of Sedimentologists, vol. 39, pp. 3–24) by G. Shanmugam, a geologist with extensive experience in process sedimentology and petroleum geology.

The paper “The Peer-Review Problem: A Sedimentological Perspective” is a 2022 article (published in the Journal of the Indian Association of Sedimentologists, vol. 39, pp. 3–24) by G. Shanmugam, a geologist with extensive experience in process sedimentology and petroleum geology.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

From CO2 Coalition

JOURNAL INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF SEDIMENTOLOGISTS ISSN NO 2582 – 2020

Vol. 39, Issue 1, 2022, pp. 3-24

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51710/jias.v39i1.243

The Peer-Review Problem: a sedimentological perspective

Abstract:

Albert Einstein, one of the greatest physicists of all time, had a deep disdain for peer review. The peer-review process, introduced over a thousand years ago in Syria and fully formalized by the Royal Society of London during 1665-1752, is an integral part of quality control in publishing articles and in awarding research grants. However, there are many lingering problems, which include: 1) anointed experts, 2) blind peer reviews, 3) delays, 4) orthodoxy, 5) bias, 6) groupthink, 7) Peer rejection of ideas (including Nobel-Prize winners), 8) inconsistency, 9) politics, 10) fake peer review and plagiarism, 11) “Sham peer review” in the U.S. medical community, 12) settling old scores, 13) online publications, 14) acknowledgements, 15) controversies in geological sciences, and 16) imbalance of peer reviewers in the biomedical research. Transparency, which is the underpinning trait of science journalism, is lost in the secrecy of blind peer review. Under the blind peer review, there are at least eight examples of scientific papers that were rejected before going on to win a Nobel Prize. Furthermore, there are 33 striking cases of peer rejection in science, including the notorious theory of “continental drift” by Alfred Wegener. My own examples of papers in process sedimentology and petroleum geology show that the same manuscript was rejected by one journal, but was accepted by another, suggesting that the blind peer review is obsolete. A solution is to adopt an Open Peer Review (OPR). Barring an open peer review, an alternative path is to publishing the entire peer-review comments and recommended decisions of all reviewers (anonymous and identified) at the end of a paper. This practice not only would force the anonymous reviewer to be objective and accountable but also would allow the entire peer-review process to be transparent.

Keywords: Blind peer review; Fake peer review; Open peer review; Biomedical literature; Nobel-Prize winners; Orthodoxy; Plagiarism; Peer rejection; Bias; Copernicus; Galilei; Oldenberg; The Royal Society; Journal of Sedimentary Research

Introduction

The issue of peer review is much more strident in medical, biomedical, and other natural sciences than in geological sciences. The practice of peer review, since it was first introduced by a physician named Shaq bin Ali al-Rahway of Syria (854-931 CE) (Kelly, 2014), has become a self-regulating mechanism for controlling quality of articles in journals by experts (peers) in a given domain. At present in 2022, journals adopt a double-blind review process in which the identities of both the author and the reviewer are masked in maintaining objectivity. Although popular, the peer-review process is not without problems. For example, Richard Smith, MD, former editor of the British Medical Journal, stated that “So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.” Richard Horton (2000), the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal, has written in the Medical Journal of Australia that “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability – not the validity – of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” During the past 50 years, in publishing over 200 peer-reviewed works, I have encountered many peer-review problems in geological journals. The peer review is so deeply entrenched in publishing articles and in awarding research grants; it is impractical to abolish the entire peer-review system today. However, it is possible to improve the system. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to identify inherent problems associated with peer-review process (Wennerås and World, 1997; Ronnie, 2003; Smith, 2006; Scissor, 2016; Jana, 2019, among others) and to provide solutions to improve the current system. However, this article is not a comprehensive review of peer review per se. Furthermore, I have commonly used my own publications and experiences in this review because I am most familiar with them, but geoscientists who publish could probably supply multiple examples of their own. This review is an attempt to explore peer-review problems with a geological/sedimentological perspective.

Download the full article using the link: Shanmugam 2022 JIAS Peer Review problem published

When It Comes to Climate and Energy, Let’s Retire the Politics of Fear

In the latest example of the scare tactics favored by climate change alarmists, it was announced last month that 2025 “was the third-warmest in modern history, according to Copernicus, the European Union’s climate change monitoring service,” as reported by NBC News.

A speaker delivers a speech from a podium in a grand hall, with a large audience of formal attendees seated in rows.

From Watts Up With That?

By Gary Abernathy

A polar bear standing on a small iceberg in a turbulent ocean, surrounded by melting ice and floating newspapers about climate change, with a fiery background and an earth-like planet visible in the sky.

In the latest example of the scare tactics favored by climate change alarmists, it was announced last month that 2025 “was the third- warmest in modern history, according to Copernicus, the European Union’s climate change monitoring service,” as reported by NBC News.

The story added, “The conclusion came as no surprise: The past 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record, according to Copernicus data. In 2025, the average global temperature was about 1.47 degrees Celsius (2.65 Fahrenheit) higher than from 1850 to 1900 — the period scientists use as a reference point, since it precedes the industrial era in which massive amounts of carbon pollution have been pumped into the atmosphere.”

As usual, our most affordable and reliable fuel sources were blamed.

“The primary reason for these record temperatures is the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, dominated by the burning of fossil fuels,” according to Samantha Burgess, the “strategic lead on climate” for the European Centre for Medium- Range Weather Forecasts, which operates Copernicus, according to the report.

Sometimes it feels like the climate change crusaders are oblivious to everything going on around them. For decades, they’ve been resorting to the same tired strategies to convince us that doom and gloom are just around the corner if we don’t change our ways. What they ignore is that their tactics aren’t working – more people than ever are tuning them out.

Americans in particular have grown wise to the predictions that don’t come true and the demands that don’t make sense. In fact, so badly has science become blatantly politicized that the number of people who have a great amount of trust in science keeps shrinking.

That fact was backed up by a recent Pew Research Center report that found that “Americans’ confidence in scientists remains lower than it was prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.” To many of us, it is now obvious that the inconsistent guidance on Covid and many pandemic edicts that were later found to be ineffective and even misleading demonstrated that science was not above being overtly politicized.

While the Pew study noted a Democrat-Republican disparagement regarding trust in science (Democrats trust it more, Republicans less), only 28 percent of all U.S. adults said they have “a great deal” of confidence in scientists “to act in the public’s best interest.”

I recently noted the welcome admission by manmade climate change believer Noah Kauffman, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, who, writing for The Atlantic, said flatly that “the full effects of climate change are unknowable, and a more constructive public discussion about climate policy will require getting more comfortable with that.” Whether in regard to vaccines, dietary guidelines or climate change, in recent years science has too often found itself at the center of partisan political debates and lost the trust of many Americans by appearing to support certain causes over others based on ideology rather than pure scientific data.

But we can’t afford to let that happen when it comes to making energy decisions. Why? Because no one can deny that affordable energy is the key to economic prosperity for American households and businesses.

When energy costs are low, manufacturers can produce goods at a lower cost, resulting in more competitive products domestically and internationally.

When fuel is affordable – whether diesel, gasoline or jet fuel – all modes of transportation, including airlines, trucking and shipping companies, can charge less, resulting in savings for all consumers.

Heating, cooling and transportation costs represent the most significant share of most families’ budgets. When energy costs are reasonable, household spending on other goods and services increases, not only helping individual families but contributing to overall economic growth.

In addition to everything else, there is real damage caused by manipulating science in a way that puts climate over people. It puts people in danger and keeps them in poverty – and ultimately only a privileged few will benefit.

Consider the billions the Biden Administration doled out to political cronies on its way out the door in the name of the climate cause. Consider also the Obama Administration giving a half billion dollars to Solyndra, the solar panel company accused of engaging in “a pattern of false and misleading assertions,” only to see it go bust – all at the expense of hardworking, taxpaying Americans.

That’s why it’s important to remove the manipulation of the energy sector from the politicization that has infiltrated the scientific community. Americans should not be pawns in the effort to frighten our people or our government into abandoning our most reliable, affordable and increasingly clean energy sources.

There’s a better way. By passing the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Act (ARC-ES), Congress can codify into law the guarantee that Americans will always have access to low-cost energy, regardless of the effort of progressive political groups to weaponize science in order to funnel tax dollars to prop up “alternatives.”

Anyone can manipulate data to come up with horrifying “what if” scenarios designed to frighten or intimidate people into making their preferred choices. That’s not how to make public policy. We need to pass ARC-ES to move past the days when the science that fewer people trust is manipulated to justify changes in energy policy that few people want. When it comes to science, let’s trade the politics of panic for the integrity of facts.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.