(From a surprising source) let’s stop pretending that it works.
They can’t do that. It cuts the legs from under one of the primary weapons they use against critics of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
[Update a few minutes later]
Related: Senator Cruz’s climate hearing with Judith Curry, John Christie, Mark Steyn et all is today at noon PST. Get out the popcorn.
The case with vanity presses is similar. Just ten years ago your writing career was doomed if you published your own work. This was due to the publishing houses having the authority to squash the little scum who dared defy them. Now, as we all know, self-publishing is acceptable, simply because the publishing houses are ignored by many.
The same process is occurring in journals, I believe. Little cliques and coteries within the journalsphere are getting ignored. And if you think this is a bad idea, ask which journal Newton used.
“Just ten years ago your writing career was doomed if you published your own work.”
This was framed as the vanity press scamming writers. One way was that there wasn’t a focus on quality of writing and these companies didn’t provide quality editing. Another was that just because you have a printed book, you can’t necessarily sell it. Marketing and distribution are pretty important for selling books.
Those two reasons were pretty true at the time. And maybe you are right that publishers would hold a grudge against writers that went around them but they didn’t necessarily need to. Without a means to sell or market a book in a brick and mortar store, a writer would fail on their own.
What has happened since is similar to the space industry, a confluence of maturing technologies and a skilled workforce. It is now possible to find good editors and to distribute your book. What is still missing from the mix though, is the business end of writing in terms of marketing or how to think of a writer as a small business owner, which seems to be discouraged by publishers, editors, and authors.
It didn’t work quite the same way back then, but on the other hand, the views of your rivals mattered a great deal.
Wikipedia seems to be kinder to Robert Hooke (y’know, Hooke’s Law that the spring force is K times distance x) than NOVA, but the word is that there was some intense rivalry, delay or suppression of publication, bickering over originating ideas between Hooke and Newton.
Was this much different than modern peer review?
Those were the days of real peer review, in forwarded letters or over drinks down the pub.
Great points from the both of you.
Lol, watching the hearing and the witnesses started interrogating the senators. Too funny. Started when one of the senators referred to his own testimony as if he was a panelist. Turns out he doesn’t know the breakdown between natural and human warming.