peer reviewing

[Esa Itkonen]

Just when I was about to participate at the 'peer reviewing' discussion, Tom Givón sent in his contribution which made mine more or less redundant. Still, here is a summary of some musings from those 42 years that have elapsed since the publication of my first article (= 'Zur Charakterisierung der Glossemantik')

When (nearly) everybody agrees that A is the case, it seems less interesting to echo this view and bolster it with more data, and more interesting to try to find out if, after all, it is B that is the case, and once having found it out, to prove it. Once you (or, rather, I) have written an article in this spirit and offer it for publication, the referees invariably respond by claiming that this just cannot be, because (as everybody knows) A is the case.

The end result has been that if (and when) my article has been published, then (just as in Tom Givón's case) more often than not this has been thanks to the editor of the journal in question, who has quietly overruled the referees. (It has also happened that editors privately solicit an article.) For a good measure, there has also been the occasional editor (= clearly a man of strong convictions and/or antipathies) who, overruling the referees, has rejected the article.

In this discussion, there have been those who have confessed not to understand Martin Haspelmath's original point. For me, this can only mean that they are people intrinsically happy with the status quo, i.e. people who claim 'A' when (nearly) everybody does so, and start claiming 'B' only when nudged into doing so by the winds of change.

Esa
.   

Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen