Tag: Galilei

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.