peer reviewing

[Keith Johnson]

When it comes to "scientific proof", maybe the best approach is to  
say that a result is scientifically proven when the scientific  
community becomes convinced of it.  No one person gets to declare a  
finding proven because we humans too easily convince ourselves of all  
sorts of crazy ideas.  So, convincing reviewers seems to me to be a  
good first step in the process of scientific proof.  Of course,  
reviewers are human too and can be lazy, or distracted, or small- 
minded.  Fortunately there is more than one journal.

On revise and resubmit.  When I'm reviewing I think of revise and  
resubmit like this:

minor revision: "Okay, I think I get it, and I'm convinced you are on  
to something, but I think if you want the average reader (who isn't  
going to work as hard as me) to be convinced you should make a few  
changes."

major revision: "I can see how this may well be right, but you've  
left out some crucial details or logical steps, and I need to see the  
whole story to be convinced."

I don't get as much out of suggestions that have to do with making a  
paper more artful, but I do very much appreciate comments that help  
me make a better case.

respectfully submitted,

Keith Johnson



On Apr 15, 2010, at 6:14 AM, 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
>>