It appears we need a little tutorial on what constitutes 'Peer Review.' The only time I mentioned 'Peer Review' in my own review of Dolan's work was when I mentioned that as far as I knew Dolan had never undergone it. That's it. I do not maintain that my own review constitutes 'peer review;' in fact, I deny it. I never said it did.
'Peer Review' takes place prior to publication and most usually involves academic periodical articles. The method is that an article is submitted for publication. An editor removes the authors' names from the submission and sends copies to 'peers' in the subject area who are considered experts in their field, i.e.: Who have earned PhDs and usually have academic appointments in either teaching or research. Without knowing who wrote it, these academicians then rate the work and call 'yay' or 'nay' for publication, sometimes suggesting changes. If the work is approved for publication and actually published, the article has a certain 'cachet' and can be counted in the 'publish or perish' world of gaining tenure as a point in the author's favor. An important point is that neither the reviewers nor the authors know who each other are (at least in theory).
This is a very formal process. The first-named author gets most of the credit. Sometimes the last-named author, when there are several, has contributed nothing to the article at all; he's just allowed his name to be associated with it. This is also where graduate students do most of the work, but the 'author' in charge of them puts his own name on the work. For a PhD, especially, the degree is not awarded; it is conferred upon you. That means you do what your mentor tells you to do.
'Peer Reviewed' works are considered properly vetted. They can be cited by other researchers and form the basis of what is 'accepted science.' A very good example of this can be seen in the current Climategate controversy. The scientists involved make the claim that they (1) do not have to pay attention to so-called 'research' that has not been peer reviewed, and (2) that ALL the IPCCv4 research has been 'peer reviewed' (and therefore sound and 'settled' science.)
The controversy in that case has arisen because it has been shown that the scientists involved, at least a few of them, attempted to influence the process of 'peer review' by interfering in the editorial process and arranging a priori who would review their work. Secondly, the IPCCv4 report has been shown to be riddled with non-peer-reviewed references, including popular magazine articles and articles from green advocacy groups. This tends to lessen the 'settled science' argument used by the advocates of global warming.
That particular issue is being dealt with in depth elsewhere on these forums, but I thought it presented a very good example of the process of peer review and how peer review works.
To return to the heart of the matter, Dolan's two volume work has not been peer reviewed. In this field there is no mechanism for peer review. It is a popular treatment masquerading as a scholarly work. My own 'tinfoil hat' review represents my own findings after having read the book and followed provided references. It also summarizes what others have said about the works, which in many cases is rougher on Dolan than I am.
Quite frankly, I was shocked to discover how poor this work was. I had read the first book in the superficial manner most of us probably have, and I blame myself for that. The use of secondary and even tertiary sources without examining the actual sources themselves is shameful and would never be tolerated in academia. The leaps of logic converting philosophical musings to points of fact are equally astounding. And moving from ten inch red balls of light to worldwide conspiracy makes you reach for the tin foil hat. It's a sad testimony to the field of Ufology that this is the cream of the crop and the best we can muster. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at Ufology and considers anyone involved to be as nutty as a fruitcake.
As to the critics of my criticism, you have actually read the book, right? You have followed a few references to see where they went, including finding a few of those dead ends, right? There are plenty of them so you won't have any trouble finding them accidentally. So your words of wisdom on this are based on facts that you have independently verified for yourselves, right? Well, that's great. I'm glad you have done that. Otherwise I don't see why anyone should pay attention to you. It's kind of like peer review. If you haven't done your homework, how do you know you are right? Upon what facts in the books themselves are you basing your opinion?
I do intend to follow Dolan from this point onwards. I think it would be a shame if the criticism of his work gets once again hidden behind un-indexed periodicals and obscure web sites subject to change and deletion. Never again will there be a situation where anyone can successfully claim that Dolan has never been adequately challenged. He can fuss and fume all he wants, but this is going to be out there, and available for all to see for themselves what the problems with Dolan's scholarship actually are.
