X-Message-Number: 23518 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:32:35 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: Stodolsky's comments on refereeing For David Stodolsky: First of all, I said that SCIENCE could be conducted without the current refereeing system. When you explain what happened in Newton's time, you are either arguing that Newton wasn't doing science (!!!) or saying that you agreed with me. As for refereeing systems, you raise some interesting points (which are not presently practiced). If refereeing is anonymous on BOTH sides, then the problem of feelings which the refereed may feel toward the referee don't arise, but it becomes very hard for the author of a paper to get any credit or blame for it. If his/her name is published when the paper is published, then we're back to where we were before. If both the author's name and the referees' names are published when the paper is published, you have almost the same situation as the one I was suggesting in my first letter on this subject. For that matter, people being people, nothing prevents the referee from disowning what he did with the paper he refereed, saying that the refereed had various faults in his thinking that he failed to catch. I could hardly claim that my suggestion has no faults. However it seems to me the simplest way to deal with these problems: the others raise lots of trivial problems in implementation. Referees for a paper must be so publicly. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23518