Peer review by patients! Understanding the Universe…


When it comes to clinical research, the participation of the people being treated—the patients—usually ends by the time the study is submitted to a journal. A few U.K.-based publishers are now looking to change that. Last month, BioMed Central, an open-access publisher, announced that in 2015 it will launch the journal Research Involvement and Engagement, which will closely collaborate with patients in all aspects of its editorial processes, including peer review. The new journal aims to capture the contributions of non-academics to scientific research.

But will patients be able to review scientific papers that require technical knowledge? “We will select patient reviewers to look at a particular paper depending on their area of expertise, which often links to the [medical] experiences they have had,” Staniszewska asserts. (1)

Peer review is crucial to science. But up to now the subjects of science were not asked for their opinion. Simply because science tends to have… “objects” rather than subjects.

Humans slowly find their place in the cosmos.

A cosmos full of life.
No objects.
Just subjects.
In denial of themselves.
Dreaming of objects.
A world full of life and life only.
There can be no other way.
There can be no other science.
But the science of humans.
Stop analyzing objects.
And you will understand the Universe…

Pioneers need no references!

A scientific paper on the aortic valve published on 1968. Had only one 500-years-old reference: Leonardo da Vinci who first explored the matter of how this valve worked. (1)

This is what today’s scientists will never understand: Pioneers do not need references.

Human made climate, global warming and “peer review” and a tool for the stupid majorities.

More and more scientists who write in peer reviewed journals believe that global warming is human made. (1)

Well, disregard for now the “Winter, cold, global warming, CERN, extreme cold…” article I wrote some days ago and the fact that CERN has a different opinion.

Focus on the “peer review” process. Few understand its true meaning.

A system where others judge what you write as right and wrong will converge to the opinion of the MAJORITY with mathematical accuracy. Because… the majority is what decides what is right and deserves to be published.

Sounds cyclical and tautological. And it is.

Science, Nature, Cell. Destroying science.

Scientific magazines hinder development of science. At least this is what a Nobel winner postulates. Journals like Science and Nature are just promoting topics that could lead to bigger sales, as any other publisher would do. (1)

The “citations” system is just a tool to promote the “stars” that need to be promoted. And its the same “star system” which made the Russian Academy of Sciences look bad because of “not enough publications in Science”.

When face is all we have (a.k.a. “citations” or “fake decrease in acceptance rates to increase the status of a journal”), the essence is gone. People no longer see what is written in a publication, only WHERE it is published.

Is really Science to be blamed here? Or our lighthearted negligence of actually READING what we are given as facts? Everybody gets what they deserve. Stop complaining! Just… read!

phD – NOT a chance to be innovative!

Don’t be afraid to post what you think is correct. Unless it is for your phD… (1)

Because we demand from our phD students NOT to be original.

After your phD do whatever you wish… But FIRST, you will pass through the “initiation”. FIRST, you must obey…

Fucked up society. Fucked up science. Nietzsche rise. Rise from the grave and teach them a lesson!

Exit mobile version