[Taxacom] suppression in science

Wed Nov 29 22:33:31 CST 2017

The prinicpal question is - what exactly is a "good science". 

The matter is that "good" and "bad" are not absolute categories, they are subjective estimates based on subjective criteria.

For instance, there are not e few cases when taxonomic papers on particular taxa used to be rejectes because there peer reviewers comment theyy were not acceptable because they did not follow precisely cladistic methodology.

So, cladistics is a "good science" and others are "bad"? How far ago and for how long ahead?

Igor

- - -
Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University
ul. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya 6
125009 Moscow 
Russia
http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov1.htm  
http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov_eng1.htm

>Четверг, 30 ноября 2017, 1:53 +03:00 от John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>:
>
>As always, the devil is in the details. I had one colleague point out to me
>that "A problem would be rejection, based on professional disagreement, but
>masquerading as 'doesn't meet the standards of the journal or doesn't
>reflect good science'".
>
>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>
>
>On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:57 PM, John Grehan < calabar.john at gmail.com > wrote:
>
>> 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_1773326307339659558_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
>>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>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.