Robin Neill wrote:
>         Peer review, judgement only by one's peers, ensures that the
>person under review receives judgement from those who are setting
>precedent for or against criteria that they themselves will have to
>meet.  Needless to say they want those criteria to be favourable to
>themselves.  Peer review institutionalizes a segment of the
>population that controls is own court of judgement.  It can generate
>a lower standard (for members of the segment) or a biased
>standard (favouring members of the segment).  It seems to me that
>both such outcomes are the consequence of peer review, generally
>taken; and both are bad.


The journals are powerful institutions, and any 
profession needs such institutions if thought is 
to advance. However, institutions can also 
protect their members from critique by narrowing 
the acceptable range of criticism. But since 
knowledge only advances by critical judgment, 
institutions can end up retarding knowledge; they 
become ossified and merely powerful mechanisms to 
defend an entrenched priesthood. In my opinion, 
institutions ought to be regarded with equal 
measures of deep respect and profound suspicion. 
Ranking the journals fall, I believe, on the 
profound suspicion side of the equation.


John C. M?daille