Speaking as one who doesn't publish (and therefore either should refrain
from commenting or is uniquely "qualified" to comment as a consumer of
research), it seems to me that it might be a good idea to have all papers
first submitted for publication and review and reviewed anonymously, with
the author and reviewers corresponding anonymously until they have agreed or
agreed to disagree and thus the paper and the reviews are ready for
publication, then affixing their names for all time, giving any of them
fearful that they might have "stepped in it" a chance to gracefully
withdraw. Following publication it would seem only fair for readers and
consumers of research to be able to sign letters of endorsement or criticism
for publication, and thus, for all time to suffer the consequences. Or
perhaps papers should be published and reviewed anonymously and the authors
revealed only some lengthy time following publication so that the celebrity
of the authors need not taint the judgment of the work that would thus have
to stand on its own merit. Something like Martin Luther King's thought that
[papers] should not be judged on the basis of their "color," but on the
content of their character? Perhaps even critiques from consumers of
research should be anonymous for a period of time, but revealed after a
decent period of exposure?
Beyond that, it would seem, would it not, especially for a discipline like
ecology, that part, if not the essential part, of academia's responsibility
should be to organize and integrate the research into a kind of whole, based
on the relationships of published research papers to each other and thus
identifying the holes yet to be filled? Then, those who wished to use the
research as a foundation for further synthesis could get on with the job of
making sense of it all--and (ugh!) maybe even APPLYING it? Further, that
whoever wanted to could dare, without fearing being burned at the stake, to
reexamine the established principles and cast alternative hypothesis,
properly to be tested, upon the untroubled waters? Finally, making mistakes
should not be the career-crashing, endlessly embarrassing thing it seems to
be? (And perish the thought, negative results should be considered just as
valuable as those in which the null hypothesis is triumphantly rejected and
the positive one confirmed?)
If everything that is known about ecology, and everybody is fearful of
speaking ill of the works of the established authority, will that state of
affairs advance the science or will a combination of temporary anonymity
with ultimate revelation of all of the authors retard it more or less?
Perhaps a superior set of alternatives or a single solution can be stated
that is superior to all? But it appears that the present state of affairs is
lacking in some respect; if that is the case, it would seem that such a
relatively simple issue of a "housekeeping" nature could be resolved. Then,
the discipline of ecology could get on with its work and reap the benefits
of some kind of transformation or "New Age?"
These are the mere musings of an observer, so they need not trouble the
principals to this issue. But they are set down just in case they might
stimulate movement toward a resolution of an issue that is demonstrably of
concern to researchers in ecology. Perhaps I should have submitted them
anonymously?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
An important point in Murray's post is that often big names get published no
matter what the reviewer says. This is especially common in conference
proceedings, where the famous are invited and often give condescending talks
that always get published no matter how crappy they are.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Efford" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: terça-feira, 2 de Março de 2010 20:02
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
James Crants has it right. I recently wrote a harsh review of a poor paper
by a high-profile author, pointing out numerical and conceptual errors and
disregard of the literature. I did what I thought was the decent thing and
signed the review. The paper was published with a less-than-gracious
acknowledgment of my contribution. This should not have got past the
editors, but it did, and I will not sign reviews for them again. Anonymity
serves to depersonalise the review process and dilute the pernicious
effects of status and reputation.
Murray Efford
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2718 - Release Date: 03/02/10
07:34:00
