"Not if you share your research. "
And there's the rub Ian. This particular Club that I refered to gave me access with a few restrictions, primary among them is that I am not allowed to reveal direct quotes from Board minutes in anything I may publish.
There are some amazing surprises in what happened there that the Club had no idea about and that golf historians would dearly like to know. So, I can publish the information to let them know OF these events but not give the PROOF.
How can that be "reviewed" by anyone then?
There are times when TRUST in the researcher MUST be granted without review. It is done all the time on here by the way. How often are old newspaper articles posted as proof of a fact or idea? The information presented in the article isn't judged beforehand by those reading it on here but is accepted as fact and proof by its very nature, yet many, many of these articles contain inaccuracies and outright mistakes. For example, I can show you a newspaper article from 1928 which states that Tilly designed Olympia Fields. Not only did Tilly not do that, I have never been able to even find a mention of him having ever even been to the club!
Also, a proper "peer review" panel is made up of recognized experts on the subject that the article is discussing. Once again, how can this be accomplished on here? For example, taking one of our more famous articles that produced more than its share of controversy, David Moriarity's Merion essay.
At the time before it was put up on site, which is when it would have to be "peer" reviewed, who on this site would have been asked to do it? Can you imagine any situation where Ran would not have had Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul be involved because of their background's with Merion and Flynn? Of course he would. What chance would there have been then of it being "accepted" for publication as an In My Opinion piece?
That is NOT criticism of Wayne and Tom, just recognition that they would have rejected it to Ran because they would have claimed that its research was flawed and conclusions were incorrect. Despite the anger and vitriol of the personalities in the discussion of it through those many long months and maybe even years(?), even Tom Paul has stated that information unknown to all came out of those heated discussions (arguments). That would not have happened if there had been a peer review system to the loss of all.
Another example, my piece on the life of A.W. Tillinghast. Who possibly could have done any sort of peer review of that? Frankly speaking, most "golf historians" are still influenced by Frank Haniggan's 1974 USGA article and would have cited that as "proof" that my piece should not have been accepted for publishing, yet I am the only person alive, including Frank Hannigan, to have personally interviewed EVERY living family member who was alive when Tilly was. Doing this brought to light a tremendous amount of information that was missed and so directly contradicts a number of Frank's conclusions. In fairness to him he trusted the one family member he spoke with for his information. That family member trusted his mother, Tilly's daughter, who told him the answers he gave to Frank. Doing so seemed logical at the time but would lead to long-held inaccuracies. That is why Frank's source, Tilly's grandson, after reading my finished manuscript of the biography I wrote before it was published, would send me a letter stating that not only was he unaware of much of what the other relatives stated, but that he believed that there was no one alive who could now claim a greater knowledge of his grandfather than me.
Yet there is considerable question as to whether or not my piece would have survived a "peer review" process for publication on GCA if it had gone through it because those who would have done the review process would have rejected a number of my conclusions as they flew in the face of "known facts."
I'm sorry Ian, but I must disagree with any and all who think it is even possible for a peer review of proposed "In My Opinion" pieces or that it should be done at all. We must put some faith and trust into the process that Ran has set up and in Ran's ability to accept and/or reject these pieces.
Now a nice discussion, even argument about any that are published is proper and fair game for all on the discussion board. The problems have been the personal attacks that have occurred. These are what need to be eliminated.