[Taxacom] suppression in science

Thu Nov 30 11:01:46 CST 2017

For what is worth or not, below some wry comments on such matters from
David Hull (which might be meangful for those of you who have been long
enough to know his work).

“Although getting a paper rejected on the basis of insufficient grounds
always makes the blood boil, this is part of science. One reaction is to
say to hell with it. If that’s the way they want to play, I’ll take my ball
and go home. The other reaction is to vow to get those sonsabitaches. The
second works much better than the former. If you keep at it, you may
succeed, in a dozen years or so, coming into power. Before you even realize
it and get to enjoy some of the fruits of all your labor, there will be the
next generation snapping at your behind. That’s not the greatest feeling in
the world either. However, I realize that it is easy enough to give
intellectual assent to these lofty observations but impossible to keep them
in mind during the heat of battle.”

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 Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Richard Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
wrote:

> 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_-81572663594
>> 9305107_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
>