Peer review-Faseb J. editorial (fwd)

Alexander Berezin berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Mon Oct 30 17:00:22 EST 1995



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:14:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Alexander Berezin <berezin at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
To: Ashok Grover <groverak at fhs.csu.McMaster.CA>
Cc: biocan at net.bio.net
Subject: Re: Peer review-Faseb J. editorial (fwd)



On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Ashok Grover wrote:

> I do not sign my reviews and in public elections I also vote confidentially.
> I think you can be far more objective without fear of reprisal.
> 

Peer review anonymity and electroial confidentiality
are two completely different matters. They have nothing
to do with each other, same as writing political articles 
as a journalis and act as a voter (equal member of public)
in election. To use democratic analogy (confidentiality 
of elections) to argue in favor of (anonymous) peer review 
in science is simply an ill logic. I can address this
at length, but quite sure most readers don't need
explanations obvious even at junior school.     
Alex Berezin  

> 
> On 30 Oct 1995, Alexander Berezin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:15:48 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Alexander Berezin <berezin at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
> > To: Sean Eddy <eddy at wol.wustl.edu>
> > Cc: bioforum at net.bio.net
> > Subject: Re: Peer review-Faseb J. editorial
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 30 Oct 1995, Sean Eddy wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <Pine.3.89.9510282004.A27412-0100000 at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) writes:
> > >    [about signed vs. anonymous peer review]
> > > 
> > > Dr. Berezin, I'm just curious -- do you sign your reviews?
> > 
> > No, apart one or two cases I don't do this. I don't believe that
> > to rectify such fundamental aberration as system of anonymous PR,
> > individual Don Quixotian examples can do too much. Howewer, in
> > all cases I am reviewing (papers only; I don't review grant 
> > proposals), I provide all suggestions to the author(s) on how the
> > paper can be improved (even if it is truly weak paper). I never
> > mark box "reject outright" and write instead to the editor that
> > I am leaving decision with him/her.
> > 
> > Obviously, if I will see a case of a clear plagiarism or exact 
> > repetition of already done work (of which the author may be 
> > sincerely unaware), I will reject such a paper (and state
> > the reasons), but so far it never happen in my practice.
> > 
> > Saying all this does not preclude me from criticising APR as 
> > a SYSTEM and keep finding more and more arguments against it.
> > 
> > And I repeat: so far, I have NOT seen one truly convincing,
> > irrefutable reason FOR Anon.PR (why it is better than the 
> > open) : if you do have one, please put it forward for the 
> > discussion.     
> > 
> > Alex Berezin
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > - Sean Eddy
> > > - Dept. of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine
> > > - eddy at genetics.wustl.edu
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 




More information about the Bioforum mailing list