[Taxacom] suppression in science

[Richard Jensen]

John,

When I review a manuscript and indicate that it is not acceptable for
publication, I do not see that as suppression.  What I am saying is that
the research, as reported, doesn't meet the standards of the journal or
doesn't reflect good science.  The review I provide is intended to inform
the author(s) of the reasons for my decision and provide suggestions for
improving the research design or the submitted manuscript.  I am not
suppressing anything - I am simply trying to make sure that what is
published meets that standards of the journal and of good (however defined)
science.

I am aware that some reviewers reject certain manuscripts for personal
and/or professional disagreements with the authors.  That is an act of
suppression.

Cheers,

Dick

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:57 AM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> Richard,
>
> Thank you for that thoughtful reflection. Perhaps that distinction applies
> as you say, but if as a reviewer of an article I find that in my opinion
> (and based on explicit criteria) that the work is inadequate for
> publication then am I not suppressing publication? In technical papers such
> decisions are perhaps not so troublesome and journals are now often
> providing subcategories such as acceptable with minor or major revision. It
> gets a little more tricky when one is writing concept papers (such as on
> evolutionary, biogeographic, systematic theory) where, at least in my past
> experience, publication is determined by vote of reviewers (so quite a
> number of editors will just accept the majority vote regardless of merits).
> And then you have journals with editors who have previously declared
> against publication of particular views. So perhaps the critical issue is
> to what extent opportunities to publish are prevented.
>
> John Grehan
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
> <#m_-815726635949305107_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Richard Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> I do not believe the situation you describe is an act of suppression, in
>> the usual meaning of the word (to inhibit, keep secret, or prevent the use
>> or revelation of).  When you make the choice, you are not preventing anyone
>> else from making the alternative choice.  The fact that you, yourself, may
>> use both alternatives is evidence that you are not trying to prevent anyone
>> else making the same choice.
>>
>> I don't disagree with you that suppression has, and still does, occur in
>> science - just that your example is not an act of suppression.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In response to my earlier comment about suppression of works I received
>>> an
>>> off list response asserting that I was referring to a particular group of
>>> "thieves". So I would state here that my comments were about the fact of
>>> suppression as part of science. It was not to suggest any position as to
>>> right or wrong of such suppression.  Perhaps my comment about it
>>> suppression becoming 'respectable' would have a negative inference about
>>> suppression. As far as I am concerned, it is a case by case issue.
>>> Naturally in the instance that affects my work I am in disagreement with
>>> the suppression while others find it fully justified.
>>>
>>> On a taxonomic level I have the situation over whether the ending of
>>> species names follow gender. In some major works they do not. In some
>>> cases
>>> I follow that, in other cases I do not (so I guess I am inconsistent and
>>> unscientific). In either case I am suppressing one of the alternatives.
>>>
>>> John Grehan
>>>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source
>>> =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>>> Virus-free.
>>> www.avast.com
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source
>>> =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>
>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>
>>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Jensen, Professor Emeritus
>> Department of Biology
>> Saint Mary's College
>> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>>
>
>


-- 
Richard Jensen, Professor Emeritus
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556