jrg13 at PSU.EDU
Sat Dec 22 14:40:09 CST 2001
At 06:50 PM 12/22/01 +1300, you wrote:
> > While I have drawn attention to the role of reviewer censorship of
> > panbiogeography ...
>Claimed censorship that is. Ad Nauseam. Monotonously. Humourlessly.
>Acknowledging no other possible interpretation. And in the last message
>... back to the old square one grudges.
Well Geoff Read has tried to suggest other interpretations, but he has not
any demonstrated evidence that the situations described are not censorship.
I, on the other hand, have given the reviewer comments for the Galapagos
paper as evidence, and also cited the case of the German journal where the
editor refused to publish anything mentioning Croizat. Of course others are
free to decided that these kinds of actions are not censorship and I would not
object to Geoff or anyone else deciding that these actions do not constitute
fair reviewer. Of course I have a sense of humor about these matters, but
evidently it does not coincide with Geoff's.
As for "grudges" I cannot comment as Geoff has not explained what he means by
this. If he is referring to my citing the New Zealand censorship it is
I do not agree with it. It seems that Geoff takes it as a matter of faith
was and is no censorship of panbiogeography in New Zealand. I will add as
an example the popular press in the form of the New Zealand conservation
journal Forest and Bird has a policy of keeping panbiogeographic perspectives
out of its journal (stated to me by two editors) while allowing free rein
>Thank you for the opportunity to study your opinions and style of
>argument, but they are no longer of interest to me.
That's ok. I was not interested in whether they were of interest to Geoff
or not. My
interest was in raising, by example, the role of censorship in the
panbiogeography. Galapagos was a clear case of attempted censorship, but it
through the professionalism of the editor.
More information about the Taxacom