At 06:56 PM 3/15/2007, Jim Kurpius wrote...
>I can't take this list spreading 12 year old non-peer reviewed papers
>from a Hoover institution economist.

Who peer reviewed the John Muir books?

Not that peer review does anything other than add a false impression of
correctness to articles. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, the
only peer reviewed study of peer review seems to be Cicchetti, which
finds the process to be flawed.

"In his comparative review of peer-review studies conducted over the
past 20 years by various researchers, Cicchetti finds consistently low
agreement among referees about the quality of manuscript submissions
and grant proposals" - Science News
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...139/ai_10965279

"even the system's most ardent supporters acknowledge that peer review
does not eliminate mediocre and inferior papers and has never passed
the very test for which it is used." - NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/0...nyt&emc=rss

"In one 1998 experiment designed to test what peer review uncovers,
researchers intentionally introduced eight errors into a research
paper. More than 200 reviewers identified an average of only two
errors." - The Scientist http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/2/1/26/1/

"Today, its lead author Woo Suk Hwang stands accused of one of the
boldest scientific frauds in memory... Could Science have detected the
fraud? Science's editors and many stem cell researchers believe not:
The 2005 paper was positively received by its peer reviewers," -
Science http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5757/23