Peer Review? - or censorship?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]

Posted by Raymond Hoser on February 27, 2002 at 02:34:25:

In Reply to: Re: Papers, etc posted by Scott Thomson on February 26, 2002 at 19:31:07:

Scott you hit the nail on the head with one of your comments -
"I recently had to argue heavily to be allowed to cite Cann's papers as an International Journal refused to acknowledge them as published. They gave me the ultimatum of removing John's papers from my Literature List or they would not publish the paper. I won the argument in the end but I can only see this happening more, not less."
That shows amaterish behaviour by whoeever was trying to censor out Cann's stuff.
I see this sort of thing in all walks of professional life.
Most recently in the case of an idiot supreme court judge who made false and baseless claims and then hid behind his horse-hair wig hoping that no one would pick him up for it - and his other errors of fact and inference.
Professional behaviour is not restricted to those who have letters after their names or editorial boards and conversely amateur behaviour is not restricted to those without.
The overlap here is huge, which means that while I acknowledge your arguments (previous posts), they fail (in my mind) to negate my central argument that it is most important to have a good and proper paper and not where it is published and by whom.
Peer review can be either formal, touted as formal (as in Lunney's publication referred to earlier) or as a matter of course and unannounced in the cover of the publication.
And yes, any form of pre-publication checking is desireable for all papers, etc, not just taxonomy ones.
Thus at the end of all this, I've gotta say I think we agree on more than we don't.
ALL THE BEST

Follow Ups:

Re: Peer Review? - or censorship? Scott Thomson 02/27/02 (2)
- Agree 100% (more) WW 02/27/02 (1)
  - Also Rare agreement 100% / no post Raymond Hoser 02/27/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: Scott you hit the nail on the head with one of your comments - : "I recently had to argue heavily to be allowed to cite Cann's papers as an International Journal refused to acknowledge them as published. They gave me the ultimatum of removing John's papers from my Literature List or they would not publish the paper. I won the argument in the end but I can only see this happening more, not less." : That shows amaterish behaviour by whoeever was trying to censor out Cann's stuff. : I see this sort of thing in all walks of professional life. : Most recently in the case of an idiot supreme court judge who made false and baseless claims and then hid behind his horse-hair wig hoping that no one would pick him up for it - and his other errors of fact and inference. : Professional behaviour is not restricted to those who have letters after their names or editorial boards and conversely amateur behaviour is not restricted to those without. : The overlap here is huge, which means that while I acknowledge your arguments (previous posts), they fail (in my mind) to negate my central argument that it is most important to have a good and proper paper and not where it is published and by whom. : Peer review can be either formal, touted as formal (as in Lunney's publication referred to earlier) or as a matter of course and unannounced in the cover of the publication. : And yes, any form of pre-publication checking is desireable for all papers, etc, not just taxonomy ones. : Thus at the end of all this, I've gotta say I think we agree on more than we don't. : ALL THE BEST

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]