Have you seen some of the comments at USNI blog?
Yes and no. USNI is a great venue for all kinds of folks to get their ideas out into the ether. That said, there's plenty of absolute drivel published (like the article we're discussing), that captures the attention of starry-eyed folks like Randy, who incorrectly ascribe legitimacy or Big Navy approval. Though it used to be better, from what I've seen over the years, USNI does not exercise much in the way of editorial discretion.
Saying that it's anything resembling peer-reviewed because there's an editor and a comments section is a bit much. I think the best examples have been where a paper is published, then there's a response from leadership. That has happened several times in the past couple years with VADM Burke and CNAF.
And a paper published, where, is commented on by O-7+, and that is peer review? Who here, raise your hands, has seen the studies and replies by VADM Burke and CNAF Brett mentions above? … Just what I thought. No doubt, any official comment from big Navy is useful. BUT, that is, in fact, Big Navy. They have their own influences, limitations and failings.
I respect and find obvious value in the opinion of an active duty flag officer. But how many of his subordinates are going to publicly say he is wrong? That there is a better way? Therein is the value in the opinions of retired guys some here so casually brush away. Lets balance BUPERS' opinion on a fitrep enhancement with that of 3 retired O-6's, 1 retired O-8, 5 recently separated O-3s and O-4s and maybe even a few courageous active duty O-3s. Only place that happens is in the pages of Proceedings.
I have seen some of the drivel in comments on the USNI blog. But I specified I thought blogs were not useful in this regard. Anyone with a computer can reply to the USNI blog and there is virtually no editorial control. Replies are instantaneous. That is the nature of a internet forum (he says as he writes on an internet forum). I was talking about Proceedings, the paper publication. A traditional journal of a specific profession. I don't know what you call a publication that is read throughout the world by interested and professional parties of the subject matter, takes contributing articles, often on controversial or out of the box ideas and issues, and subjects the author and their article to critical review by peers within the profession. By definition, that is a peer reviewed publication. With that said, one can criticize their editorial control, but that is the case in all professional journals. Someone has to be the gate keeper. Can't publish everything that comes across the transom. They sponsor and moderate symposiums. They would publish the aforementioned paper you covet and the reply by the relevant flag officer, or, like in the past, sponsor a symposium to discuss it.
If Big Navy is interested in a perceived problem in the Navy, is it more useful to read a paper published, again, where, researched by a one or two individuals with their personal conclusion, to be reviewed by one or two O-7s and above, or is there value in a broader distribution and public review by hundreds of individuals within the profession, stake holders, that might find flaws in the research and/or have a different conclusion? I think that is a no brainer. Your white paper should be published in Proceedings and your O-7 should reply therein.
I am guessing we share the desire to see more scholarly work in Proceedings. But, the vast majority of what they publish are contributions. They publish the best they get. And some of that is going to be from the wardroom and deck plates. It has its own value but is usually not very scholarly. I'd like to see a movement to have more of the official white papers and studies, that are often not read by more than a couple dozen people, published in Proceedings. Alternatively, the War College and NPS can expand their official publications to include more circulation and peer review/comment.
