ArXiv:1007.3202 is a paper whose conclusions I do not agree with (well actually I do think the original EPR paper is “wrong”, but not for the reasons the author gives!) The abstract of the paper is as follows:
EPR paper [1] contains an error. Its correction leads to a conclusion that position and momentum of a particle can be defined precisely simultaneously, EPR paradox does not exist and uncertainty relations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Logic of the EPR paper shows that entangled states of separated particles do not exist and therefore there are no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Bell’s inequalities are never violated, and results of experiments, proving their violation, are shown to be false. Experiments to prove absence of nonlocality are proposed where Bell’s inequalities are replaced by precise prediction. Interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of classical field theory is suggested. Censorship against this paper is demonstrated.
Okay, fine, the paper makes some pretty astounding claims (at one point I believe the author simply rediscovers the detector efficiency loop-hole in Bell inequality experiments), but that’s not what really interests me. What really interests me is the authors claim of censorship. In particular the paper reports on the authors attempt to submit this paper to a workshop, QUANTUM 2010, whose proceedings would appear in the “International Journal of Quantum Information” and the rejection he received. Okay, fine, standard story here. But then the author gives a synopsis of the referee reports, followed by, I think, a more interesting claim:
I am sorry that I did not put here the full referee reports. The ArXiv admin forbidden to do that. I was told that anonymous referee reports are the subject of the copy right law. It is really terrible, if it is true. The referee report is a court verdict against my paper. Imagine that a court verdict is a subject of the copyright law. Then you would never be able to appeal against it. I think that the only punishment to dishonest and irresponsible referees is publication of their repots. It is so evident! But we see that dishonesty and incompetence are protected. I do not agree with such a policy, however I have nothing to do but to take dictation of ArXiv admin.
Is it really true that the arXiv forbids publishing referee reports? Do referees really retain copyright on the referee reports? And if so, should it be this way or should referees have to give up copyright on their reports? Inquiring minds want to know!
I suspect referee reports are protected in a similar way to letters. Not the highly condensed scientific articles bearing that moniker, but the old-fashioned goose feather on parchment type. After all, they are a private form of communication between the referees, the editor, and the authors. Since the authors are part of the communication channel (the capacity of which is known to have reached zero on occasion), I would expect that they have every right to make the contents of the report public. Then again, I have not read the terms and conditions of journal submissions.
The question whether the arXiv allows printing referee reports is answered in part in a contribution by David Mermin, who published his report on the original teleportation paper. If reviewers can publish their reports, I don’t see why authors cannot submit the reports they received, especially since they are (typically) anonymous.
Who knows, perhaps the threat of publishing bad referee reports, even if they are anonymous, will entice the reviewers to do a better job.
In fact, an interesting project might be a website where authors can submit the outrageous (or otherwise!) anonymous referee reports they’ve received, along with a link to the corresponding paper. This would help with the venting process (though perhaps not with fostering a collegiate atmosphere…). In practice, this already happens, just less publicly.
Great idea, Ashley. Make it an open blog (and call it Circle of Violence), where people can submit outrageous referee reports.
I’d put that in my feed reader…
“(well actually I do think the original EPR paper is “wrongâ€, but not for the reasons the author gives!)”
Dave,
Briefly, what are your reasons? I find this subject fascinating.
Thanks
I’m guessing that referees, journals and the arXiv are reluctant to publish reports because of the danger of libel action — especially in England.
Success in science (and libel actions) is all about reputation, and it’s easy to see how a scientist could argue that a published negative report has damaged his/her reputation as a scientist.
The onus would then be on the referee to prove the “truth” of the report — good luck with that!
Of course, if the author publishes the referee report himself, it’s unlikley that he could take action against its authors. As far as I know, you can’t libel yourself!
Ah, the joys of English libel law!
Obviously, MathSciNet publishes reviews … and some mighty famous articles have received some mighty snarky reviews.
See, for example MR0026286 (10,133e), which is J. L. Doob’s 1949 review of Claude Shannon’s A mathematical theory of communication:
“The discussion is suggestive throughout, rather than mathematical, and it is not always clear that the author’s mathematical intentions are honorable.”
Ouch … Shannon can’t have enjoyed reading that.
However, what works adequately for mathematics would likely work worse for physics … the present review methods are likely (to borrow Winston Churchill’s description of democracy) “the worst possible system, except for every one has ever been tried.”
I don’t get why referees should ever be anonymous. What is the point of this policy? If referees had to link their real-world selves to the reviews they write, the quality of reviews would dramatically increase. In addition I think it would be fair to publish the reviews, together with the reviewers’ names, as well. It would be straightforward to do, just include links off the journal pdf so that people could read the reviews as well.
Most of the reviewers of my papers are thoughtful and offer useful feedback. But every once in a while you get somebody who doesn’t understand basic physics. I think reviewers should be held responsible for their reviews and not be allowed to hide behind anonymity.
The counterpoint that people would argue (not me, necessarily, I said people!) is that without anonymity, there will be political payback (most worrisome is payback outside of the review process, for example not supporting hiring someone because they wrote a negative review of one of your papers.) But I do know that some conferences have experimented with non-anonymous reviewing. I also know people who, if allowed, sign their reviews.
Also others argue that papers should not reveal their authors (I know some CS conferences that do this), so that any pre-existing biases that we have concerning those authors isn’t a factor (though often you can back up who wrote the paper should you choose to figure this out.)
The anonymous referee report is also payback but without any possibility for the victim to defend himself. It is thus much worse, but some
people are taking profit from the system to push an agenda. Therefore the system will not change.
Peer review is organized crime.
They can block out a valid paper for years.
I do think the original EPR paper is “wrongâ€, but not for the reasons the author gives!
I’m really intrigued and wonder if you could expand on this. I read the paper and checked his claims in section 2 regarding the momentum operator and it seemed to check out – sorry I’m really rusty on this stuff.
a.) where do you think the author is wrong?
b.) where do you think EPR is wrong?
I think there’s a need for a referee report complaint site as Ashley proposes. It could become very popular. Who hasn’t experienced a twitch of indignation at a referee report? On El Naschie Watch this sort of thing has come up before. See Francisco M. Fernández on Ji-Huan He for example, where Prof. Fernández complains about a referee report.
I am delighted to find such a forum.
I would like also to know, what are the reasons behind the words
“I do not agree with (well actually I do think the original EPR paper is “wrongâ€, but not for the reasons the author gives!)”
I should confess that the paper discussed here is really a little bit poor. I promise to submit in ArXiv another paper with more substantial critics of all this nonphysics of Bell’s inequalities measurements. I will submit only in the ArXiv, because no journal will accept it. The plot of “Fundamental Physicists” is strong and censorship is insuperable.
I do not agree that anonymous referees are not needed.
But it must be a practice: if an author publishes his article somwhere he should have a right to include in his paper a section on submission and rejection history with all the referee reports he likes. It must be published by journals. It will increase their responsibilities in choice of referees and in choice of reports they send to authors. Till now no publisher except the Journal “Concepts of Physics” (former editor in chief Edward Kapuscik) accepted such a section.
I would like also to tell some words about appellation system in APS. It is not an appellation system, but a protection system for ignorance and incompetence. I could publish nowhere my letter to APS president. For instance the APS News even do not reply to my letters. If somebody wants to see my struggle with Phys.Rev.B on linear algebra, he can look at http://fnp.kek.jp/workshop/20100408/proceedings/26-vignatovich.pdf. I promis it is a funny reading.
I am lucky to find accidentally this Forum! Best regards to everybody here.
It seems that the forum died out because no comment appeared since 2010. But it is natural. The problem is clear. The ArXiv admins do not react, and nobody can change anything. However, thanks to the site academia.edu I am able to upload there all my papers with referee reports, and people can find them. I am also grateful to publishing house of Wiley and sons for publication the book “Handbook of Neutron Optics” with all the epigraphs containing citations from the referee reports.