Re: Date limit set on first Americans

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:54:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Wilkins)
wrote:

>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...

My point exactly.
>> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 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...

As you havevquoted above, I have always been careful to distinguish
between 'peer review' and  "peer review in the modern sense".




Eric Stevens