peer reviewing

[Paul Hopper]

Let's not forget, too, that the misunderstood geniuses of our field are
themselves perfectly capable of wielding their gate-keeping privileges
when the opportunity comes their way. It's largely a question of, as the
saying goes, whose ox is being gored.

Paul



On Thu, April 15, 2010 09:14, A. Katz wrote:
> Esa,
>
>
> I fully understand what you said, and it makes perfect sense.
>
>
> But this problem that you've pointed out extends, it seems to me, beyond
> the issue of peer reviewing and directly into hiring, tenure, and
> everything that goes into deciding whether something has been
> "scientifically proven" or not.
>
>
> What can we, as a community of thinkers, do about it?
>
>
> --Aya
>
>
> http://hubpages.com/profile/Aya+Katz
>
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Esa Itkonen wrote:
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Paul J. Hopper
Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities
Department of English
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213