"In some cases 'peer review' has more to do with 'peer pressure' than anything else."
That could be true. I'm willing to accept that peer review is flawed. I'm not sure that it's quite so bad as you think. However, there is no perfect system. There are VASTLY more deserving papers that are available for publishing than there are reputable journals in which to publish them. But journals don't get to be reputable by publishing any crap that comes along. And, yes, there is probably a lot of subjectivity to the process - but without it, fellow scientists would waste a lot of time trying to figure out what makes sense and what doesn't.
There are people who demonstrate repeatedly that they don't even understand the basics - and then whine about how they can't get published - guys like Dembski, for example.

Behe, I notice, has most of his publications in an Italian journal - supposedly a good one, but apparently their peer review is a little less stringent than Science or Nature. Nothing to prevent these guys from publishing in lesser journals or in coming up with their own journals - surely they could get funding for such a project. But real scientists wouldn't buy into it. They'd continue to keep Science and Nature and Cell on their shelves - and eventually the ID mag would disappear as people realized it was just a vanity press with no new developments in actual science.

"I just think it should clearly understand both it's strengths and weaknesses. "

Entirely greed.

Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 04/25/07 11:05 PM.