Changes

::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion.  Let us know when you get one.  But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution.  Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here.  So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute.  You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion.  Let us know when you get one.  But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution.  Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here.  So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute.  You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==

==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==

There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.

There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.

The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.

The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.