ntly being logged, I think that even the =
tentative report should be released immediately.
Bill Silvert
- Original Message -=20
From: Liane Cochran-Stafira=20
To: William Silvert ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Peer Review: was International
Bill,
Not sure I would agree, at least I can't think of any field of
biological research that can do without it. Editors just aren't
versed enough in all areas to be the sole word on what's good science
and what isn't. Yes, I can think of some really horrible papers that
should have been weed
---Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:10 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research
> (I
Bill is right in that peer-reviewed does not always equal a paper with
good science. I would hope that none of us would be so naive as to
assume that peer-review is perfect, just as I would hope that we
understand that not all editors can walk on water and raise the dead.
The hope, at least in my
: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:10 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
I think this is a case of scientists falling into a pit they dug themselves.
Since I was a physicist before turning to ecology I am always puzzled by the
mystique
I think this is a case of scientists falling into a pit they dug themselves.
Since I was a physicist before turning to ecology I am always puzzled by the
mystique that peer review seems to have acquired. Not all physics papers are
peer reviewed, and I know at least one paper that wasn't which ea
