I can't agree with the above. The journal editors and peer reviewers who are supposed to be guardians of the process have NOT done so. They have participated in pushing only one side of the story.
The ONLY reason that the "anti-GW" side of the equation has gotten any exposure at all has been due to the availability of the internet and the ability to bypass the people who have foresaken their guardianship, and become "gatekeepers" instead. Or perhaps the informational equivalent of "Maxwell's demon".
So, no.....I do NOT see that the "scientific method" has succeeded in this case. Quite the contrary. OTOH, the true "freedom of the press" HAS succeeded.
I'm not sure what the answer is to fixing the SM. Perhaps, since most journals are now moving to electronic distribution, each submitted article might have an "open comments forum" associated specifically to that article to allow much more extended "peer review". Include the comments from the "official" peer reviewers as the first "posts" in the forum, and go from there. Leave comments open, for, say, a calendar year.
Quite correct. But "the scientific method" does not fail because the guardians misbehave. You think this has never happened before?
Exposing the misbehavior of the guardians is itself part of the process of the scientific method.
FREEPMAIL COMING, PLEASE ANSWER.