Hi
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the backpeddling and obvious bend of the APA, why would anyone on this
list become or remain a member of such an organization?
For the discount on journal prices. Also, because I belong to
CPA (C being Canada), I get a discount on my APA
Hi
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999, Linda M. Woolf wrote:
Jim Clark wrote:
Obviously Linda and I need to get a life!
Perhaps, someone can operationally define this for me. I
clearly am clueless!
I was writing very early in the morning (3am or so) on a weekend
night and I thought from the date
Jim Clark wrote:
I'm probably slipping into another topic here, but I think that
psychology already does too much filtering of findings.
Rejection rates in the natural sciences are much lower than in
psychology. Perhaps that just reflects the quality or state of
the disciplines, but I think
Hi
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Linda M. Woolf wrote:
Jim Clark wrote:
For editors of scientific journals to be put in the
position of mindguards based on some possible social or political
implication of research is not the way to promote a science of
psychology. To use just one of Linda's
Hi Y'all,
Jim Clark wrote:
I agree that these are the issues that scientists, as well as
politicians and citizens have had to wrestle with. But these
debates are completely independent of the question of the
correctness of the underlying scientific ideas. The problem with
putting the
Very interesting:
June 9, 1999
The Honorable Tom DeLay
Office of the Majority Whip
H û 107 U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative DeLay:
I want to begin by commending you for your strong personal and professional
commitment to the serious problem of child abuse. We
Hi
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Jim Guinee submitted the following letter from
Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D.
CEO/Executive VicePresident
to
June 9, 1999
The Honorable Tom DeLay
Office of the Majority Whip
We will seek independent expert evaluation of the scientific
quality of the article and
Jim Clark responded to the letter below:
We will seek independent expert evaluation of the scientific
quality of the article and will make those results known. This
is unprecedented in the Associations history of scholarly
publishing, but, in view of the criticism of this study by
Medical journals such as JAMA and NEJM often publish editorials
accompanying articles that they feel require such commentary.
I was not aware that the AMA (apart from its journals) took the sort of
action that is described below.
At 10:28 AM -0700 6/11/99, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote:
Jim Clark
Hi Tipsters,
Jim Clark wrote:
This too is an anti-scientific proposal. Articles should not be
accepted or rejected in scientific journals because of being
controversial (sounds like an invitation to submit inocuous
material) or because of some imagined policy implications. I
wonder what
Hi
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Linda M. Woolf wrote:
Jim Clark wrote:
This too is an anti-scientific proposal. Articles should not be
accepted or rejected in scientific journals because of being
controversial (sounds like an invitation to submit inocuous
material) or because of some imagined
Hi
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote:
Jim Clark responded to the letter below:
We will seek independent expert evaluation of the scientific
quality of the article and will make those results known. This
is unprecedented in the Associations history of scholarly
Hi Y'all!
Jim Clark wrote:
For editors of scientific journals to be put in the
position of mindguards based on some possible social or political
implication of research is not the way to promote a science of
psychology. To use just one of Linda's examples, what is being
proposed by APA is
13 matches
Mail list logo
