Russell Standish wrote circa 10-12-04 02:31 PM: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:18:26AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote: >> >> to change, etc. So, they really do have to commit to work like this. >> > > No scientist will do peer review for the sake of paying bills.
Sorry, that was not my implication. I _tried_ to imply that scientists do peer reviews as a part of their profession, not out of simple curiosity, regardless how intense that curiosity. It takes relatively little work to subscribe to a bunch of journals and read whatever you want to read. It takes a great deal of work to actually review articles, even if it's merely your intention to be catty or negative. So what I intended to say was that scientists review articles because it is part of their role as a professional, not because they get paid to do it. They must commit to the work as a part of their profession. A good side benefit is that it forces you to learn things your natural curiosity would not have lead you to! -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
