why some people and scientists do not want their work to be peer reviewed?

Question

is it the religious views or what...

Answer 1

I can think of a couple of reasons.

In science, work that is intentionally withheld from peer reveiw is often seen as suspect - unless it was grossly flawed, why wouldn't a scientist want it reveiwed? And to be fair, this may very well be one reason.

Another reason can be social blowback. I can recall a paper that was released a few years ago that was trying to analyze the relationship between Isreal and America... though the paper was well-researched and its critics did little to address any of the claims reasonably, they didn't need to. The paper and its authors were labelled as anti-Semites and undoubtedly they had a much more difficult time personally and professionally afterward. I can see a number of people wanting to avoid that kind of trouble and just keeping their work to themselves (plenty of historical examples of this, too).

It also bears mention that in science discoveries and reputation can be more important than many other things. In this wise, I can think of examples of scientists who discovered something that they thought was the tip of something big, and keeping it secret so they could get most of the scoop to themselves instead of having someone else nose in and steal their thunder (as has also happened any number of times historically). Most scientists would know this to be a risky proposition, though - there's always the chance that someone else discovers the same thing and takes away any credit you'd have for finding even the 'tip'.

Lastly, there are sometimes proprietary reasons why someone cannot publish their work. If they are being paid by someone else or are using someone else's stuff, they may not be at liberty to share if their patron doesn't want to. This is one of the reasons why a lot of research funded by private companies is viewed as suspect - they could just squash unfavourable results and broadcast only the good stuff.

Answer 2

Generally, if you want to publish, you want peer review. Exceptions are proprietary publication and publication in house journals or, sometimes, government publications. Another reason for avoiding peer review before publication is the speed of publication. It tends to be faster if only the editor critiques it.

Answer 3

The only scientist who would not want his work to be reviewed would be a dishonest fraud.

Answer 4

maybe they think their peers are all idiots