peer review/censorship and electronic journals

From
Date
Looking at the differing viewpoints on the desirability of peer review, I
realized there's a connection with my posting on evolution/creationism
issues.  In both cases, there's an underlying issue of belief that must be
addressed to understand the more immediate discussion.
        If you think that some objective truth exists in the natural world
(whether or not we can be sure we've found it), then science should seek to
approach an understanding of this truth.  The peer review system then
becomes a way to ensure that science is on track.  On the other hand, if
science is just one of many subjective ways of looking at the world and no
objective truth exists to be found, then peer review is just the way some
scientists do things and other folks can bypass it if they like.
        I think peer review is desirable.  The most feasible method for
keeping electronic publishing from becoming a way to get anything published
seems to be having certain sites which only allow reviewed manuscripts.
Anything not published in such a forum would not be considered a formal
publication.  Such an informal posting might be a good way to get feedback.
A range of officalness might be possible, analogous to a meeting abstract
volume versus a respected journal, etc.

David Campbell   "old seashells"
Department of Geology
CB 3315 Mitchell Hall
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599-3315
bivalve@email.unc.edu