Plan A + refereed forum

Bill Ross bross at nas.nasa.gov
Mon Dec 16 14:22:23 EST 1991


I like Plan A because I think 2 groups is plenty for the volume at hand
(especially once this issue senesces).  I also fully agree with Don
Bashford's response to Dave Kristofferson's anguish over the deeper
problem (appended) and urge that these discussions focus on how to
implement a refereed (third) group. I remember reading that _Science_
was going to have a refereed newsgroup or something - anyone out there
involved?

Bill Ross

>>>>> On 11 Dec 91 17:03:39 GMT, kristoff at genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) said:
DK> Why does it takE SOMEONE WHO IS NOT EVEN IN OUR FIELD to ask a
DK> provocative question that then necessitates an exchange of ten or more
DK> messages over whether the question is really serious or not AND THEN
DK> STILL DOES NOT LEAD TO A DISCUSSION OF THE RELEVANT SCIENCE?????????

<bashford at scripps.edu replies:>
> Because there is insufficient coupling between the bionet groups
> and hard scientific sources, such as journals.  What we need are
> newsgroups that are fully equivalent in rigor and prestige to journal
> articles -- newsgroups that are not merely moderated, but edited and
> refereed.  Then there could be unmoderated newsgroups for discussion
> of articles appearing in the associated refereed groups -- kind of
> like letters to the editor, except that everyone's letters get published.



More information about the Bioforum mailing list