X-Message-Number: 23486
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:43:58 +0100
Subject: Re: David Stodolsky's comment re mine
From: David Stodolsky <>

On Saturday, February 21, 2004, at 12:59  PM, Thomas Donaldson wrote:

> Refereeing in any form did not exist at the time of Newton, nor at
> the later time of Gauss. Science does not require refereeing in the
> form in which its currently done.

There is a difference between doing science and the scientist as a role 
in society - a career. Newton and others with independent wealth or a 
wealthy sponsor could do science and exchange letters with colleagues 
for informal review. This is different from a system where rewards are 
distributed to those whose work passes review. This is well documented 
in the library science literature on the role of the scientist.


> As I understand it, a small minority
> of journals do not require ANONYMOUS refereeing: if you referee a
> paper you're also required to let the author(s) of the paper know
> who you are, and if necessary answer any complaints about your
> refereeing made by those author(s).

This doesn't work when a scientist has to review a paper by the head of 
his/her own department or another person in a power relationship with 
the reviewer. Double blind review, where neither the author's or 
reviewer's identity is revealed is today's most advanced practice.


>
> My own feelings about refereeing would be that it would be quite
> sufficient for the referees to be known to the refereed, and
> responsible for answering any complaints the refereed may have
> about their opinion of a paper. The only practical way this can
> be done, given human conduct, is that the referees be named when
> the paper is published.

If you read the paper linked to earlier, you will see this isn't true. 
The ideal system both shields identity and preserves accountability:

Stodolsky, D. S. (1995). Consensus Journals: Invitational journals 
based upon peer review. The Information Society, 11(4).


dss


David S. Stodolsky    SpamTo: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23486