g.read at NIWA.CRI.NZ
Fri Dec 21 17:59:28 CST 2001
> Zdenek Skala raises some interesting points ...
It was a good summary.
> The trouble occurs in New Zealand where, as Geoff Read has indicated, the
> role of the reviewer seems to be seen as one of a censor and where editors
> just follow that directive and panbiogeography is locked out.
I indicated no such thing. And if you make such sweeping generalisations
please try not to contradict them in your very next sentence.
Referees are asked to do more than report "low conformity to mainstream
views" (Zdenek Skala), and I would be very surprised if they were not
cautioned to allow opinions other than their own. They should be. They will
probably, however, also be asked if the method is sound. If they answer
that it is not, then apparently we arrive in the dangerous territory of worries
about suppression and censorship. John says his referees don't justify
their conclusions. Indeed they should. But I wonder if their "claims about
panbiogeography that are not correct ..." (according to him that is) is not
some of that substantiation (caveat - it's not entirely clear if he's talking
about his own work). John is on a dedicated crusade for panbiogeography
and is probably never going to be happy he's received a fair hearing
unless the outcome is a publication for every submission. So be it. But it
simply doesn't happen to others and won't happen for him either.
Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.cri.nz>
More information about the Taxacom