Logically, I'd assume (as mentioned earlier) that peer review does not have a stifling effect at least the effect should be neglible (on impact) compared to funding limitations. Of course if you publish more, your chances are better to get a grant, but then the grant proposal is getting peer-reviewed, anyhow. And if both peer-review steps are limited, how should funds be distributed?

 

The problem with peer review of grant applications is that everyone is going for the same money, so there is an incentive to give bad peer reviews. If you know that only one special programme grant will be funded, and you have applied for it, it is very tempting to be negative about any grants (competing for the same money) that you are asked to review.

The most worrying trend in modern physics is that papers are now being judged not on their scientific merit, but by the number of citations they have. In my opinion, this is very dangerous.

 

I see what you mean.

 

 

I am a referee for several journals, and the last three papers I have reviewed I have rejected, not because I didn't like their subject (or even viewpoint), but because they were actually wrong. They all based significant parts of their work on quantifiable false statements. However, all 3 of these articles are still available on arXiv and I don't believe an interested amateur (or for that matter a careless professional) would spot the mistake.

 

Ouch. That's just painful to read.

 

 

Are people listing arXiv.org articles on their CVs?

Are people listing arXiv.org articles on their CVs?

 

Oh yes, of course. So do I. When you are applying for a grant, you need to make as strong a case as possible, and an unpublished paper on the arXiv means it is finished and awaiting peer review.