Peer Review: Kathy's Questions
U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu
U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu
Mon Jan 22 05:22:47 EST 1996
On Sun, 21 Jan 1996 13:43:14 -0500 (EST), Alexander Berezin
<berezin at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> wrote:
>It depends what you mean by 'constructive feedback'
>(e.g. anonymous reject of your paper, often with
>irrelevant or no comments, - is it 'constructive
>feedback' ?). I think that present (APR) systems
>hinders, rather than encourages, feedback. this is
>one (though not the only) major flaws of APR.
I agree with that as well.
I guest I just got sucked back into the wonderful belief that if
people cared for the truth in the first place... APR would really
work and what you suggest could as well?
I guess that was the point of my previous rambling?
Why should we have to change these systems in the first place if
people only cared about what they were doing?
>No, I am not necessarily buying that 'in earlier times
>things were better'. People are always the same.
No Alex. In a span of 7 years I have personally seen how it is
only getting worst. Things were better just back in the mid-80's
compared to now. And it's not just because I have matured and lost
my idealisms. I can tell you how entire departments have changed
as well as their goals... and it's not for the better.
>In 12 century Omar Khayam wrote: "Poets [meaning intellectuals of
>the time ] have a habit of gettin together in a circle to spit on
>each others". What we need (and the ONLY thing we CAN) is
>to change the SYSTEM, not the people. All those who tried to
>change PEOPLE overe the course of history consistently
>failed (need examples ?). No, classes on ethics won't do
Agreed! Change the system to pick out the right (*the* best). But
at the same time properly training (educating) the future ones.
And I may not have explained that well in my last posting?
But that was what I was referring to. For not only are the worst
getting rewarded, but the way they make it to the top is setting
examples for our younger ones to follow.
I can tell you about grad students I have trained who felt Gallo
was stupid for getting caught in the first place and then admired
him for getting away with it. They looked up to him as a role
model for how to pattern *their* career.
We need better education of our students... and that's where
teaching ethics, and having *good* morale leaders, is at least a
>The only process which DOES HAPPEN however, regardless
>of all our discussions and views, is that for people
>'out there' (general public) there is quickly going
>errosion of the public image of science and loss of
>respect to scientists as social category. There are
>many signs for is which I omit for length reasons.
>Is is good, bad, or whatever, I leave to each one
>to decide on the own.
Most certainly... it's been going on for a while now.
As one person in the media put it... scientists are becoming as
believable as used car salesmen these days! At that's a view from
Whether this is indeed good or bad... I don't know? A friend of
mine thinks it is good. For she believes science will have to be
taken down a number of notches in order for it to get built back up
to something truly better.
More information about the Bioforum