Your comparison to Catholicism/reformation is great – because that’s what it is. Take just one thing – peer review – for example. “His” peer review are 5 stuffy old guys (translation=respected, learned colleagues) that have enough “authority” (translation=gained tenure and have “journal editor” on their CV) to debate the merits of his article submission and say whether or not the submission should be published (translation=censorship).

My peer review is posting an idea on my blog and getting instant feedback.

The difference? I get more feedback, I am in control, my thoughts are stored on the “tubes” forever. His version – He won’t get much feedback, the editor’s in control, and his thoughts are stored in a bound journal hiding in the dark recesses of the Library Science section of an academic library.

So which is better peer review?

And that’s just ONE of the many ironies in his blog posts…