Peer review-Faseb J. editorial (fwd)
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.
> 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