[Taxacom] suppression in science

[John Grehan]

Dick,

I could not have said it better. I quite agree.

John

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Richard Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
wrote:

> 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_-695097217965897227_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
>