[syndicate]

[claudia westermann]

>Peer review is not exactly a
>foolproof guarantee of quality.  More so, in my view, it's a guarantee of
>conformity, and a modestly successful quality filter.

surprise ?
the competition in the field of science is rough and the reviewers 
are working at similar problems.
telling that someone has ideas oneself did not have for the last 
twenty years would be like shooting one self.
success is important .. process ignored ..

>Each chapter of
>Wolfram's book could have been published as 5 or so papers in quality
>refereed journals

) a little annoying for the reviewers .. possibly they have to think 
for ten years now as well ..
extremely annoying .. as far as I am informed, these reviews are 
hardly paid. it's more about 'marking' the reviewer's position. it's 
called honour.

>It will be a shame if his tone is found so annoying that the truly
>intriguing ideas sprinkled throughout the book are ignored by the scientific
>community.

community .. lovely word for this .. )

>He really will have stabbed himself in the ass then, huh...

oui .. huh .. (hm .. ) .. did you pass a discounter accidently ? my 
e-mail program makes a red  mark ) ... you know .. only in the ass 
(.. ) actually ..
kind of immune position he is in, I thought .. don't you think so ? 
..guess he is not expecting to be appreciated by the scientific club 
..
one cannot really expect this if one takes ten years off .. all the 
others are following the pressure of production of half thought 
things for deadlines.

a tout a l'heure
claudia