Hello Mr. Kuzmic,
you wrote:
>To learn stepping back from our work, there is nothing better than three
>independent and anonymous reviews of each journal article conducted by
>recognized workers in the field and supervised by an editor.
Although this is the case, even this situation is an 'ideal'. The reviewers
are human beings with biases especially when they are established in their
field and involved in various competition with other laboratories (in
biosciences especially). Even though I did not personally experience bias or
even 'sabotage', I have heard professors talk about certain reviewers rejecting
an article on basis of personal bias (for example, if the submission poses an
objection to the reviewer's own theories) or even delaying a response to the
article's status while quickly jumping on the ideas presented therein in their
own laboratories then coming out with a paper before the reviewed piece.
These are extreme cases, the presence of which seems proportional to the amount
of time one has spent working in a particular field, but they do exists, and
undermines the faith that other scientists may have regarding the objectivity
of the review process. As science progresses towards a more commercial
enterprise, playing politics have become the 'norm', even in academic
institutions.
Jane
