AES and Its Papers

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

1. Number 1 is an issue that isn't specific to the AES, but is an issue nonetheless. Without a view into who actually reviewed something, the consumer has no clue about bias, agendas, or even skills of the peer doing the review.

 

2.The AES told me it favors this anonymous approach because there are a limited number of qualified researchers and they usually know each other. Anonymity avoids hurting personal relationships and reputations when something is criticized.

 

3.To me, sources are everything. This opaque approach favors personal feelings over transparency and objectivity. Again, just my opinion because I struggle to accept statements from Ministers of Information. 

I added the number for reference:

1. This is the most common paradigm in scientific publications.  I have been on both sides of the matter as author of my own papers and as reviewer of those by others.  The anonymity is essential but has nothing to do with the consumer.  It simply is intended to minimize bias.  In a case where the author believes that a review is biased, they can request another as replacement or to rebalance and it is the editor's responsibility to manage this fairly.

2.  As I mentioned above, that is true.  There were several times that it was clear to me from the text exactly who was my reviewer but, generally, it was not.  As an author, it was really of no consequence but entertaining to speculate. 

3.  A responsible journal lists its editorial board and publicly thanks its reviewers without explicitly linking them to specific papers.  No system is perfect but, ultimately, is judged by the weight of the respect it earns or doesn't and that is hardly a secret.  

4. (Not above.)  The real check on the value of a report is whether it is replicated.  The most significant and interesting findings are usually replicated because they inspire great interest (or great doubt).    

[Kal Rubinson]

32 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Now, the reason I called the BS article an advertisement is the back page of the article. In opinions, letters to the editor, etc. one sees the background of the authors listed. In regular scientific papers. one does not see that. The science should stand alone, the person's background should not be important to the content of the paper.

Did it have links to their Facebook pages? 😁

 

P.S.:  I remember the great Wazoo.  Really nice amp.

[Kal Rubinson]

8 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

Replication of findings is most difficult in the case of audio hardware or software. How can you state with any certainty that amplifier X or cable Y will sound the same when it is transported from one environment to another?

We are talking about the engineering and, perhaps, the science behind audio hardware and software.  In that context, your question is not relevant.  It lies in the area of psychoacoustics.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

7 hours ago, lucretius said:

I guess you are referring to seminal works, sometimes called pivotal or landmark studies.  These articles initially presented an idea of great importance or influence within a particular discipline. Seminal articles are referred to time and time again in the research, so you are likely to see these sources frequently cited in other journal articles, books, dissertations, etc.

Certainly those but, also, any non-trivial finding.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Reviewers give their stamp of approval, which equates to a very powerful message for those who aren’t learned in a subje

In a scientific journal, the role of the reviewer is to insure that the work was done properly but there is no stamp of approval on the results or the conclusions.

 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Because peer reviewed papers are often used as badges of honor toward consumers, we should know who stamped it.

The audience for peer-reviewed papers is not the consumer.  It is the relevant scientific community.

 

2 hours ago, andrewinukm said:

For the layman, any form of information within the paper is prone to be misinterpreted anyway.

Very likely.  

[Kal Rubinson]

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I certainly hear you Kal, but I can’t count how many times I’ve received a marketing pitch that included an AES paper mention to bolster credibility. 
 

If all of this stayed in the domain of the scientific community, it would be fine. It’s the crossover for marketing that causes issues. 

Right.  The onus is on the marketing abuse on not on the source.  Hardy uncommon in many fields.

[Kal Rubinson]

4 hours ago, botrytis said:

The problem is the source is allowing the marketing abuse. AN example is the paper that was published about vaccines and Autism, that vaccines cause it. The paper was finally pulled and disavowed after a through and lengthy research into the author and his methodologies. The author was also convicted and jailed for his malicious lies and mistruths.

Clearly, their review process failed.

4 hours ago, botrytis said:

The problem is, once the genie is out of the bottle, it is hard to get back in. Anti-vaxxers still quote this paper as truth, even though it has been proven as a sham and a lie. Once something is said, on the internet, it is there forever.

That is unfortunate.  Would public revelation (and/or shaming) of the reviewers have made any difference?

[Kal Rubinson]

58 minutes ago, Confused said:

Arguably, the reviewers might have been more careful, or less blasé you might say, if they had known from the outset that their names would be published with the paper.  

Arguably, the editor might have selected better reviewers.  The point is that the error here is at the source.