Chinzilla wrote:
> I have heard professors talk about certain reviewers rejecting
> an article on basis of personal bias
That is why most editorial policies allow authors to give a (short) list
of people who should -not- be asked to review the paper. Even if such
as policy is not explicitly stated, I am sure that most editors would
honor this request.
> delaying a response to the
> article's status while quickly jumping on the ideas presented therein in their
> own laboratories then coming out with a paper before the reviewed piece.
I believe things like that do happen, even more so with grant
proposals. In the U.S., grant review boards are -not- anonymous, so
occasionally it is possible to catch the offender. However, as a
reviewer I am typically given two weeks by the editor, who would be
greatly surprised if I sent a manuscript on the same subject to his/her
office before completing my review. I could use another journal, but
sooner or later I'd be found out.
> As science progresses towards a more commercial
> enterprise, playing politics have become the 'norm', even in academic
> institutions.
It seems that playing politics in science has been around forever. If
it's not commercialism, it's the eternal craving for power and status.
Throw into this some personal idiosyncrasies and you have a fine mess.
In the history of chemistry, for example, I seem to remember reading
that Kolbe and Liebig were at each other's throats all the time.
-- Petr
_____________________________________________________________
Petr Kuzmic Ph.D. * BioKin Ltd. * Madison, WI 53708-8336, USA
pkuzmic at biokin.com * http://www.biokin.com * 608.256.1269 fax
