Re: Date limit set on first Americans

Eric Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:39:39 +0100, Peter Ashby
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Eric Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > Eric Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
> >> >> >prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
> >> >> >"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
> >> >> >selection...
> 
> In fact, it seems that Wallace's letter was published without peer
> review. Darwin was asked for his opinion as, no soubt, so were many
> other people. As I have aqlready said (bleow) this does not amount to
> peer review in the modern sense.

Sigh. It's going to depend on what you *mean* by "peer review in the
modern sense". For instance, most peer review is anonymous today, but
not all (I have known who was reviewing two of my papers). Wallace's
essay was reviewed by two of the leading experts in the field and
recommended for publication, quite apart from Darwin's own peer review
(let us not forget *he* was a leading expert in the field, which is why
Wallace wrote to him in the first place). But anonymous peer review by
professional journal editorial nominees did not then exist, sure...
> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
> >> >> asked for his opinion.
> >> >
> >> >For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop
> >> >the semantic games and have some good grace.
> >> 
> >> When I wrote the above I was using 'peer review' in the modern sense
> >> as it is applied in the publication of technical and scientific
> >> papers. I am sorry if the subtlety of the distinction escapes you.
> >
> >What do you think modern peer reviewers are asked for if not their 
> >opinions Eric? Their considered opinions, hopefully, Their informed 
> >opinions, certainly or they are badly selected. Bu their opinions, 
> >certainly. 
> 
> But only the publisher had the power of veto. Only the publisher had
> the power to change what was published. Otherwise you might as well
> say theatre critics in the news paper are 'peer reviewers'.

Not exactly - it was standard practice of the day for publishers to ask
for the opinion of experts, or at least well informed amateurs, before
publishing a technical book (and this applied  in theology, history and
so on as well as in science).
> >
> >Or maybe you have some other idea of what editors wish from peer 
> >reviewers? That was the basis of my objection to you playing semantic
> >games. I am truly sorry if your information on the subject is so lacking
> >that you were unaware of the functions of a peer reviewer so leading you
> >to an egregious mistake. If this is the case please accept my heartfelt
> >condolences for your profound ignorance.
> 
> Peter, I don't know what's getting at you but you are unusually both
> wrong and excessively condescending. The discussion has always been
> about the peer review process (if any) to which Darwin was subject. My
> point is that, what it was, it was not peer review as we now know it.
> Modern peer reviewers don't just give their opinion. They have the
> effective power to withold publication of a paper, either permanently
> or until certain changes are made. As far as I know, none of Darwin's
> reviewers were in that position. That is why I keep making the
> distinction between Darwin's reviewers and modern peer reviewers. The
> distinction is not just a semantic (or any other kind of) game. It is
> real and at the core of the present discussion.
> 
It's a bit like saying, "They weren't scientists in those days because
they didn't have the use of electron microscopes and other modern
techniques". *Nobody* got that sort of treatment in those days; not even
Lyell or Cuvier or Agassiz or Gray. It was a *different* system, and had
Darwin not met the standards of the science of the day, he would likely
not have had the Origin published unless, like Chambers, he ran the
publication company...

-- 
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au