Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 195:
Line 195: − ==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. − 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.
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 13:37, September 20, 2008
, 13:37, September 20, 2008cleaned out unsigned, unsubstantive comment
what if the other two were indeed the type of articles you were asking for? [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 16:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
what if the other two were indeed the type of articles you were asking for? [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 16:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
== Statistics examples ==
== Statistics examples ==