Let’s enter the world of science and higher education. At some point in one’s higher education, he/she has to publish several articles in accredited journals and publications. A criterion for publication in these journals and publications is that the article must have been reviewed peer-to-peer to be allowed for publication.
What is a peer-to-peer review? Well as it implies, an article being reviewed by different people who are some sort of expert in the area article is written. Every so-called “expert” will make a review of the article and approve or disapprove it. I don’t know you may call it some kind of voting but an educated one.
You may think this is great. What is wrong with that? It is good that many other experts review an article before it is being published. In that way, it will be safer that the contents of the articles are correct. I agree there are some benefits to this method. I will mention some pros.
The first pros are that the research’s work is validated through experts. The common knowledge in a specific area are compared and the validity of the result is being examined alongside with the comments and feedback that the researcher gets, he/she can improve his paper or result. Another benefit is that an article which has been peer-reviewed is well understood by the majority of the researcher.
The main flaw in this process, in my opinion, is that the ideas which do not match the majorities of mainstream scientists are not accepted easily. This is a threat to new discoveries. If everyone thinks the same there will be no progress thereby there will be no new discoveries.
When a freethinker comes with new ideas and is unable to share these new ideas with the most important publications, the news about these ideas and discoveries stay hidden and away from the public. The result is of this is that no new research will be done in that new discovery.
In our today universities, university students are forced to submit their paper with many quotes and references from other sources which have been peer-reviewed. No one asks the student what his finding is and what is his own result. If the result of a short study does not match the mainstream believes about the subject, the student has to conclude and invalidate his own result because it doesn’t match other mainstream results.
This is the highest form of educational dictatorship which being practiced all over the world. In our universities today, students are not thought to think on their own, rather than follow what is the trend and has been published before. They are encouraged to think like others and follow the idea’s which have been published by the mainstream.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), Father Angelo Secchi, S. J (1818-1878) and Herve Faye (1814-1902) are the father of the idea that our sun is a gaseous planet, still today scientists believe without any fact or prove that the Sun is a gaseous planet. In the article “The Sun is not Gaseous, A Debunk of mainstream theory about the sun“, I discuss with help of latest information provided by accredited scientist that this is false.
Now, do you believe it would be easy for Dr. Pierre Marie Robitallie to publish articles and explains his findings to the world? This is why the peer review process can be a threat to new discoveries.
What do you think?
If you liked the article, please share it.