Modern science dissociates itself from philosophical concepts and defines its basis in mathematics and experimentation, but the humanities maintain a strong bond with philosophy.
All who work in scientific research in the areas of exact sciences and also of life sciences and nature have some knowledge about the existing criteria in the validation of scientific production, but little on this subject is available to a wide audience.
An essential division is that which exists between the exact sciences, the biological sciences and the human sciences, which depart from different bases and concepts. Modern science dissociates itself from philosophical concepts and defines its basis in mathematics and experimentation, but the humanities maintain a strong bond with philosophy.
Recently, Lia focused on the characteristics of different forms of scientific research and their dissemination to the public, in an article published in an e-book by ECA (1). Lia returned to this article an analysis of the process of peer evaluation, which dominates the validation of scientific knowledge, but which is generally unknown to the general public.
The production of scientific knowledge has some aspects similar to cultural and artistic production since it is made by human beings, but it has marked differences, as it aims at achieving a specialized, objective and impersonal knowledge. The most fundamental feature of scientific research is its timing, each step making reference to what was done earlier in that subject, setting up an extremely complex network of interrelated information where there is an internal coherence that defines the structure of knowledge.
There is a coupling between rigidity and freedom in scientific production, and each subject of research follows a dialectic between reason and intuition of the researcher. The validation system of science can only really advance with an ethic and a moral that the scientist incorporates deep within itself, aiming at achieving excellence in the knowledge of the subject to which it is dedicated.
Throughout history, there are discoveries and inventions that occur outside of the academic system. But I analyze here the scientific production done in universities and research institutes, which follows the pattern of communication through specialized articles published in scientific journals. The editors of the most prestigious journals can refuse the article without explanation, or start a complex and long process (which may take months or even years), of peer review, used in all scientific journals.
The article is sent to specialist scientists in the same area (pairs), who judge the merit of the work, without remuneration for this service. The content of the (anonymous) opinions is returned to the author, followed by a discussion and review until the work is accepted or rejected.
The authors of published works become advisors in the trial of works, also without remuneration. This process has a historical origin, which I have raised and I will relate here, and also an ethical and moral basis, without which the quality control of scientific production ceases to function.
The need for brainstorming
In all human cultures, there is a process by which the elders transmit their knowledge to the young, and this is done in many possible ways, but always with a personal relationship between who holds the knowledge and who receives and incorporates it. Universitas were medieval corporations of students and masters, who later received recognition from civil and religious authorities, giving rise to the Universities of Bologna (1088), Paris (1150), Oxford (1167), Cambridge (1209).
In European medieval universities, the studies were divided in arts, laws, medicine and theology. The arts comprised Trivium (logic, grammar and rhetoric) and Quadrivium (arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy). The music came along with mathematics because of the theory of harmony. It should be noted that universities were not taught crafts, the focus was on the intellectual life, which before the 12th century took place in monasteries.
It is interesting to note the similarity between Laurentius de Voltolina's depiction of a university class in Italy around 1350, and the environment as it exists today when a teacher tries to capture the attention of the student group, but some talk, some sleep!
On the other hand, it became common for intellectuals to exchange letters in a debate free of ideas, and dozens of societies were formed in Europe from the 14th century onwards, initially bringing together writers and painters. The first scientific society was the Academie des Lynces (Rome, 1603), sponsored by Prince Federico Cesi, and Galileo Galilei was one of its members. It gave rise to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which until today promotes research and examines scientific issues of interest to the Church.
The oldest secular scientific society that exists today is The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, founded in 1660 by natural philosophers and physicians, soon supported by King Charles II. Shortly thereafter, the Academie des Sciences (Paris, 1666), founded by Louis XIV at the suggestion of Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert, is now integrated with the Institut de France.
English and French societies had different philosophies from the outset. The motto of the Royal Society, Nullius in Verba, is the symbol of freedom of expression and evidence through experience.
These societies published the works of their members, and there were discussions among them. The oldest scientific journal, published since 1665, is The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London). In 1752 a Committee on Papers was created to select the publications, which can be considered as the beginning of the peer evaluation (3).
As to the origin of this system, it was suggested (4) to have links to the form of book publishing in the 17th century, when a real authorization for the legal sale of printed books was required, which was formally delegated to the royal academies at its foundation.
The books published by the academies needed to be authorized by two members of the Council, who analyzed the text, reporting that the content had nothing contrary to the purposes of the Society, more in the spirit of censorship than of quality control. This system existed only for books, scientific discussions in these societies were free, but the process of becoming a member of society was complex, and by choice.
Scientific societies have made a transition from state censorship to self-criticism in scientific works, and the whole process has changed a great deal over the last 300 years. The system went from external censorship to internal review, first in the natural sciences and much later in the humanities and social sciences.
The current peer review system certainly focuses on scientific content, but the imprimatur it guarantees goes back to its origins. This system also defines the relationship between Science and State, since the granting of public research funds depends on it.
The private, or almost private, discussions of the peer review process are loaded with emotions and disputes between rival groups, with a lot of competition, but this does not usually appear in published texts. Peer review is not necessary to do science, but discussion among people who understand the issues is essential if knowledge is to advance.
Only through the discussion do the different visions become debugged and eventually converge to an impersonal truth. Science indeed defines itself over time, and when independent researchers arrive at the same result/conclusion.
There is a vertical transmission of knowledge (oriented/oriented or master/disciple) with strong personal involvement, a relationship that simulates the parental relationship, coupled with a horizontal transmission between peers, resulting groups with a dynamic that will define the scientific advance along the generations. An example in fundamental physics can be found in the book that relates the history of general relativity and cosmology over a century of heated debate (5).
Current Situation
The market for scientific publications began with the journals published by scientific societies, which were maintained with library subscriptions, where they were found by the researchers. This system was drastically altered with the advent of the internet, and the possibility of buying the articles by the readers.
Then the system was implemented by which the author/institution pays the magazine to open access to the readers. This system coexists with the usual system of peer review, that is, merit continues to be judged in the old ways.
Currently, more than 2 million articles are published every year in about 30,000 scientific journals, and there is no more possibility of control over the content of scientific production worldwide, which handled about 23.5 billion dollars in 2011.
The validation of scientific production on a world scale is changing, both by alternative forms of evaluation and by the way of doing science. The old handmade way of working in Theory and/or Experience was modified from the early 1960s, initially by supercomputers and then also by personal computers. The possibility of numerical computer science, with the simulation of experiments, and the emergence of large international laboratories, such as CERN in Europe, with billionaire investments, emerged.
Scientific production as a whole tends to perpetuate the already existing basic lines, with very little openness to a break in the current paradigms, and above all without a solution perspective on basic questions concerning life.
References
1 - Lia Queiroz do Amaral, Freedom of expression in scientific production, pp. 116 - 130. In e-book Communication and freedom of expression: news, Cristina Costa (org.), São Paulo: ECA-USP - 2016.
2 - Improving peer evaluation: guides, tutorials and manuals of good practice. SciELO in Perspective. SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE, 2015.
3 - K. Fitzpatrick. The History of Peer Review, Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy, 2009. New York: NYU Press.
4 - M. Biagioli. From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review, Emergencies: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures, v. 12, no. 1, 11-45, 2002.
5 - Pedro G. Ferreira. The perfect theory, a biography of relativity. Company of Letters.
Lia Queiroz do Amaral is a retired professor of the Institute of Physics at USP. Currently on a senior teacher basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment