In a message dated 8/17/01 9:13:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
Let's say a scientist has published 100 articles over the last 30 years.
These articles have all been determined to be very credible. Does that mean
that when this scientist writes his 101st article, the scientific community
will decide to skip the peer-review process "because this scientist has
written so many credible articles before"? I'd think not.
>>
In reality past performance and reputation do matter in the review process.
The initial review is often but not always blind but the final editorial
decision is not blinded. What one has done in the past has a lot to do with
how the data is evaluated. If a researcher is known to be meticulous it is
reasonable to assume that she is still meticulous. If on the other hand there
is evidence of prior inpropriety or even carelessness, there will be a much
greater attention to the details of how data was collected and how inferences
are made. In some ways this seems unfair (the work should in theory be judged
on its own merits) but in reality there is no other way to do this sort of
analysis. One's track record is in fact an excellent guide to one's future
work.
