The way things were done before the current system took over (in the 1980s, I believe).
Not sure what it was exactly. I heard rumors that the journal often did its own review. Either way, if it was good enough for Einstein and Feynman, it might work for others.
The important thing is that the people whose careers might be upended by revolutionary findings can't stop or steal the ideas.
So you want to replace the current peer review system with one you don’t really understand? Have you tried looking into why the system was changed in the first place?
The fact that it worked for Einstein doesn’t make it a better system. Do you think Einstein wouldn’t have gotten his revolutionary work published with the current system?
> * Do you think Einstein wouldn’t have gotten his revolutionary work published with the current system?*
We'll never know without a control group of current Einsteins...
But yeah, that's the kind of thing I worry about. Einstein did stir up quite a bit of resistance at first.
Below is an interview with a scientist who got his idea "borrowed", and his paper shanked in peer review by the "borrower", who eventually got a nobel on it.
Not that I'd expect anyone to listen through a 2 hour podcast. It is pretty dramatic if you're crazy enough to go for it!
I can second this podcast. It was really quite interesting, and I'd love to hear other biologists comment on it, especially those that were mentioned. I feel like I can't personally have a very accurate picture until then
Btw: The old system was the editor reading and reviewing all submissions himself. The new system of only a quick glance by the editor and then further scrutiny by a peer was instituted for two reasons: 1.) to many submissions for the editor to read all and 2.) increasing specialization. So going back to the old system would either lead to very cursory and potentially incompetent reviews or the increase in the number of editors to a point where all current senior reviewers are now editors. The former is completely intractable and the latter is still worse then the current status quo, especially since it removes the practice of having two or more reviews that specialize at different aspects (e.g. having on reviewer focus on the numerical side of the simulation and another on the statistical side of the comparison with observation data).
In many many subject areas we already have that through the use of preprint servers such as Arxiv. No need to get rid of the upsides of peer review just to get that.
Not sure what it was exactly. I heard rumors that the journal often did its own review. Either way, if it was good enough for Einstein and Feynman, it might work for others.
The important thing is that the people whose careers might be upended by revolutionary findings can't stop or steal the ideas.