[Taxacom] suppression in science

Thu Nov 30 10:37:34 CST 2017

Igor,

I think the definition of "good science", is similar to the view that a
species is whatever a good taxonomist says it is.  We might like to believe
that science is a purely objective process, but its history and practice
put the lie to that.

Cheers,

Dick

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:33 PM, igor pavlinov <ipvl2008 at mail.ru> wrote:

> 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
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Nikitskaya+6+125009+Moscow+Russia&entry=gmail&source=g>
> 125009 Moscow
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Nikitskaya+6+125009+Moscow+Russia&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Russia
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Nikitskaya+6+125009+Moscow+Russia&entry=gmail&source=g>
> 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.
>
>
>

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