[meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues(SPPI)

From: Walter Branch <waltbranch_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon May 8 18:43:59 2006
Message-ID: <006201c672f0$e5677d00$6a01a8c0_at_DrCollman>

Hi Doug,

Yes, your description is pretty accurate (at least for my own field, child
psychology). Back in my publishing days, I would hope that the editor would
send the paper to favorable reviewers! Many a paper was "accepted with
revisions" or "rejected" which hurts your ego but you eventually get over it
and make the revisions.

I remember one reviewer, who reviewed a paper on the syndrome of non-verbal
learning disabilty which I and my major professor had written. He learned
who had written the paper and contacted us directly, suggesting that we buy
his latest book and read it bofore submitting any future papers. He
rejected the paper. It was then I learned about the longstanding fight
between this guy and my major professor! We resubmitted it and asked the
editor to have it reviewed again by a different reviewer and all three
accepted it without revisions!

On the other hand some reviewers had very constructive criticism which made
many papers much better.

I laugh when I read posts that talk about profesional scientists being
dispassionate, unemotional, data driven and completely objective.

>(There is no recognition for "papers reviewed".

That's true. In the publish or perish world, there is no place on the CV
for "number of papers reviewed."

Doug, your reference to Einstein is funny. Can you imagine a reviewer
writing "understandably, the paper is limited within the constraints of
present knowledge but I think the paper could be improved if the writer had
more emperical proof for the postulates. I also think the writer needs to
clear up the "cosmological constant" part as it detracts from the overall
thesis and the writer admits it is a fudge factor of sorts. Denied pending
further emperical evidence."

It is not a perfect system, but it's the best we have.

-Walter Branch
-----------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: <MexicoDoug_at_aol.com>
To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings
Issues(SPPI)


> Hola Gary and others
>
> Yes, usually with independent peer review you have to make all the
reviewers
> happy by answering their sometimes dumb questions but your sometimes
erroneous
> statements, poor exposition, ambiguous statements, flawed graphs, etc.
> Frequently, each reviewer gets a separate copy of your work to review and
> independently reviews it blindly - then all the corrections and
clarifications are
> forwarded to you from the editor to clean up or overhaul. So you can see
that
> there is no jury coming to a verdict, just a bunch of sometimes friendly
and
> sometimes overly enthusiastic scientists defending their territory in the
diverse
> details with pens who suffer from all of the benefits and vices people
have
> and who sometimes delight in pointing out errors they find. If the editor
> properly picks a set of expert independent peer reviewers, the review can
be more
> rigorous than a trip to the dentist, even if you have good teeth (If he
> doesn't, well let's ignore that). While the system has weaknesses in that
if the
> editor likes you, there is the potential for issues that might not be too
> critical to be glossed over, or there may be so few available reviewers
who may
> become friendly with the I scratch your back now and you mine later, it is
the best
> we 've got. On the other hand, if one applies the scientific method
> rigorously and considers all the literature relating to the theme, even an
aggressive
> reviewer can be mostly neutralized by good work.
>
> If you can think of another system that works better, you deserve a Nobel
> Prize. Remember, when a reviewer is asked to review someone else's work,
they
> are usually not paid and may just feel a responsibility to the temple of
science
> even if they are hopelessly swamped with their own work (There is no
> recognition for "papers reviewed". In exchange, they usually remain
anonymous, and
> get to keep up with publications before they hit the press, and sometimes
get
> ideas from their review work that can help them advance related studies.
>
> The moderating of this process falls on the editor's shoulders where the
buck
> stops. The editor has a reputation to defend and a lot riding on his or
her
> ability to churn out quality work in the journal periodically, and this is
the
> system of checks and balances we have.
>
> Saludos, Doug
>
> PS, incontrovertible is synonomous with perfect. The peer review system
does
> not demand that. It demands defensible work. Imagine where we would be
100
> years later if we held Einstein to the standard you favor. Relativity
would
> never have been published, and still with all the effort in these last 100
> years has its holes and would remain unacceptable and unpublishable. Not
a very
> good scenario, I think you'd agree.
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Mon 08 May 2006 06:43:58 PM PDT