Which system are you referring to, James; the open publishing one, or
the large conference one?
On the other matter, how to communicate, I am sure we are all aware
what a complex issue this is. ATM I'm thinking about the 'forked
tongue' approach; write in a reasonable and equable tone, but load
sentences with implicit assumptions about the issue by use of key
phrases and words. Perhaps a guide to rhetoric and language use might
be worth considering?
I'd also thought about the response to the blatantly contrarian post
that riddle most sites. Given their standard tone, perhaps a charge of
being a bully might effectively place these people and their comments
in context; as most of the content is aggressive and personal, a
reference to name-calling and playground pushing could defuse the
impact (if any) of such declamations.
Just a couple of thoughts...
On 22 Apr, 10:54, James Annan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
> > Peer review is definitely flawed and IMO best viewed as, like democracy,
> > merely the least bad of the alternatives.
>
> "Flawed" may sound stronger than I meant (which is merely that it
> doesn't always get things right). I don't offer any solutions, although
> the EGU system is an interesting one.
>
> James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
