Well, how about in terms of the process you described earlier of an idea trying to get started? Can peer review serve to stultify that starting of a new theory in the professional community?
A. Yeah. I mean, it can and will happen that way. One of the problems with the peer review process generally, and I think one needs to appreciate this, too, it’s supposedly a mark of a good citizen of science that you do peer review when you’re asked for it. So if I get sent an article to review from a colleague, you’re supposed to do it. You’re the guy who knows about it. You’re doing a favor to your field. But, in fact, fewer and fewer people are willing to give their time to do it. So it turns out that the peer reviewers, in effect, become a relatively small group of people in the field, even smaller than the potential number, okay. And so what happens then is, you end up getting fields pretty much bottlenecked by a few people who kind of make all the decisions in effect. And this is kind of the problem. It’s not a problem, you might say, that’s deliberately set up, but it’s a kind of default problem. And journal editors are always struggling with this. When I was a journal editor,
