In September 2011, researchers at the CERN institute in Geneva
convened a press conference to make a jaw-dropping announcement. The scientists had been firing a beam of neutrinos 450 miles from Switzerland to Italy, and, after taking tens of thousands of measurements, they'd discovered that some of the neutrinos appeared to be moving faster than the speed of light. If true, the results would've shattered some of the most cherished beliefs of physicists.
What was almost as surprising, however, is that the scientists
had not yet published their findings in an established scientific journal at the time of the announcement. The results had not been picked over by expert reviewers who could try to poke holes and question the conclusions. Instead, the CERN researchers were
placing their paper on arXiv, submitting it to an "open-source review" in which anyone from around the world could scrutinize the experiment and try to verify the results.
Six months later, the findings of the so-called OPERA experiment
were disproved. Four other experiments had found that neutrinos travel at the speed of light after all. Einstein's theory of special relativity was saved. Yet the CERN researchers also set an odd precedent, in which scientific results are announced to the world and hyped before they've gone through traditional peer review. To some scientists, this was a
controversial practice. And now the practice seems to be creeping to other areas, including the always-charged field of climate science.