Nature of 24 October 2024 has a recollection article on the early days of peer review, following the Royal Society unsealing report from 1949 to 1954. With some mentions of well-known Bayesian characters like Jeffreys
“For a 1950 paper that discussed ‘anisotropic elastic continuum’ by mathematician James Oldroyd, geophysicist Harold Jeffreys wrote: `Knowing the author, I have confidence that the analysis is correct.’”
(albeit identified as a geophysicist) and Haldane
“A negative review [of Alan Turing’s 1951 paper] by scientist J.B.S. Haldane states: `I consider that the whole non-mathematical part should be re-written.’ A more positive opinion came from physicist Charles Galton Darwin, who said: `This paper is well worth printing, because it will convey to the biologist the possibilities of mathematical morphology.’ Still, Darwin criticized the proposed use of a “digital computer” to simulate wave theory. “The machinery is far too heavy for such a simple purpose,” Darwin argued.”
and Haldane again
“In a 1943 review by Haldane of a paper on the fecundity of Drosophila flies, the reviewer suggested cutting figures and tables, some of the discussion and, bizarrely, a short eulogy of a fly biologist.”
![In an issue of the New Statesman I got in the Eurostar last month, I found a book review [which I cannot retrieve] that mentioned [British Bayesian] I.J. Good's changing views on the rise of the ultra-intelligent machines and the end of humanity. Between 1966 and 1998, which is quite early for being afraid of ChatGPT. Book review with no novel argument. (The title is the one of 1966 Good's paper in Advances in Computers, which I could not access either. Where are the AIs when I need them?!](https://i0.wp.com/xianblog.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/1695482648813.jpg?resize=450%2C338&ssl=1)

