|
Testimonials
- The text was obviously meticulously constructed with each presented idea being supplemented by a variety of examples crossing multiple disciplines. It was also a delight to see that many times an idea came to my mind while reading this book, It would only be a few pages further before the author introduced and addressed the concept and my concerns in a coherent and eloquent way. It was almost as if my thoughts was being purposely manipulated in an effort to mentally prepare me up for the next section of the book.
– Phedias Diamandis, MD, PhD, Neuropathology Resident, University of Toronto, Canada [additional comments]
- It was interesting reading this book. I could relate to and understand many of the issues it raises.
– Dr. Jonathan M. Potter, Clinical Director, Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation Unit, Royal College of Physicians, London, U.K. [additional comments]
- This book presents simple to understand yet powerful insights for people frustrated with failure and confused with success during grant application and peer review processes. As articulated by Lehky, there are fundamental limitations in assigning value to novelty using peer review that need to be better appreciated by all participants of the peer review process, from individual applicants and reviewers to editorial and review boards.
While the book’s primary focus is to shed light on the fundamental limitations of peer review, it also highlights the considerable influence that a biological concept known as degeneracy (a form of diversity) has on the effectiveness of many selection systems. All participants of peer review would be better served if those crafting peer review activities developed a better appreciation for the importance of degeneracy in selection.
– Dr. James Whitacre, University of Birmingham, U.K.
- I scanned Serge Lehky's book on a plane and enjoyed especially the final chapter. Serge is a smart guy, and I think that Serge agrees with the famous statement that grants = REwards, not Awards (as applied by the current system of peer review).
– Curt Civin, Professor, Associate Dean for Research, University of Maryland School of Medicine,Director, Center for Stem Cell Biology & Regenerative Medicine, U.S.A.
- Exhibiting the mindset of a true philosopher, Serge Lehky processing the familiar frustration with occasional peer reviewed rejection of his scientific work, has come to think about the topic the way Aristotle would. The result is this poking book of questions regarding societal progress and the efficacy of peer review. Humans and animals alike depend on societal approval. Alas, progress is led by a few pioneering far-sighted individuals whose ability to win approval may be below par. Society favors stability and predictability and is tempted to ignore the message of adaptability and growth. Alas, community survival depends on its ability to accommodate change in attitude, priorities, even in faith and conviction. Mr. Lehky points out that the literature is replete with erudite work asserting that peer review of work of science is woefully suboptimal. Owing to his scientific reputation, Mr. Lehky is often invited to scientific conferences on the topic. He notes that countless people wring their hands and complain, but no one comes forth with a practical solution. If far-sighted Winston Churchill would have won peer approval to his opinion that Hitler must be fenced in before he swells out of control, then tens of millions of WW-II victims would have been spared. What a price to pay!
Mr. Lehky is not bringing us cut and dry solutions. His approach is consistent with classical philosophy, with humility and with commonsense: let's first identify the topic as critical, and then let us study its roots, and reality, allowing a solution to emerge naturally.
As the world transforms itself into the global village the reality of peer review changes. Technology puts everyone of us in direct contact with our seven billion peers. We have little time to waste in finding ways to insure that this unprecedented impact will be channeled for the good of society. And as a first step – read this book!
– Gideon Samid, Professor, University of Maryland University College, U.S.A. [additional comments]
- The analogy between natural selection and adaptive processes during peer review results from a very creative and stimulating analysis. The author points out intrinsic, sometimes counterproductive flaws, which frustrate most investigators and can stifle innovative research. As humans, we can change these rules of "natural selection". Reading this book will hopefully motivate researchers to reform a slow review process in order to accelerate research and to promote fairness, while restoring the high value of diversity for scientific research.
– Manfred Schubert, Senior Investigator, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A.
- I very much enjoyed reading the book. I could see how these ideas relate to my own professional career, including my own 'adaptations and maladaptations.'
- Stefanie Vogel, Professor, University of Maryland, U.S.A. [additional comments]
- The book is excellent and approaches the topic of peer review in a unique way
- Dr. Nandakumar Madayiputhiya, University of Nebraska, U.S.A.
- I am very impressed with the logic and breadth of knowledge incorporated in this book. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to read it.
- Jerome Cantor, Professor, St. John's University, New York, U.S.A.
- I enjoyed reading the book and the way it links peer review to natural selection. The stochasticity of peer review is of particular interest.
- James Till, Professor, University of Toronto, Canada [additional comments]
- For the newcomer to these ideas, this book is a wonderful guide that brings to life the sophistication and randomness of natural processes, including those we might assume are founded on authoritative objective principles. There are discoveries throughout. The breadth of the author's scientific and philosophical knowledge and a warmth in the regard for the reader makes this read more like a good story than an academic exercise, and I mean story in the best sense of essential truth.
- Lyn Camire, Writer, U.S.A. [additional comments]
- I found this book to be a stimulating read, especially the relevance of natural selection and of the concept of biological degeneracy to peer review.
- Alain Stahl, Author, Science and Philosophy, France [additional comments]
- Much of what this book addresses has been touched on by philosophers like Popper – but never, that I am aware of, from the angle or depth of analysis by Lehky.
- Merle Coe, Managing Director at Teton Sands, U.S.A. [additional comments]
- Now I hear the expression 'grant review' in a whole different way.
- Lyn Camire, Writer, U.S.A. [additional comments]
|