HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Re: In defense of PNAS
Date: 2 Jan 1993 19:16:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <93002.085212FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>Here the publisher and the distinguished person he choses
>make their choices from the entire field of distinguished
>scientists, not the particular group of distinguished
>scientists who happen to be members of a particular club.


In an edited book, there is one (or a few) "distinguished persons" who
are making their choices from the entire field of science. In PNAS,
there are several hundred "distinguished persons" who are making their
choices from the entire field of science. That is the only difference;
in both cases, the editors are free to solicit or accept contributions
from everyone. For your statement to be correct, PNAS would have to 
only publish contributions *authored* by the members. 

Your original problem with PNAS was that members said they had
"promised" papers to other authors, or to their own lab, and thus were
not interested in your publication. These members were classic "strong
editors"; they wanted to express a point of view with their pages, and
your research didn't serve that purpose. The members had the entire
field to choose from, and chose the research they wanted to, and it
didn't include yours. I see nothing discriminatory about this, this is
the role of a strong editor. 

>
>The readers are best served by unbiased access as possible to
>the best authors in the field, who should NOT be selected on
>the basis of [...]
>

You have no right to enforce your view of how a publisher's readers
are best served; these views belong in a position paper, not in a
enforced document.  If I want to publish a journal that only accepts
articles from female anthropologists, or department chairs, or
scientists that are also creationists, I should be able to do
this.  A journal of this type will have a deep point of view, just as
the National Review or The Nation has a deep point of view about
US government and politics.

>
>Censorship means deciding on the form and/or content of
>some form of publication, based NOT on the merits of the publication per se,
>but on the perception of what is "good" for the reader.

By definition, a "strong editor" makes content decisions for the good
of the reader, this is the job of an editor.  You are indeed promoting
censorship, by telling PNAS (and every edited book published) how they
are supposed to run their publication.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:05:15 EST
From: <FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Author's Rights

AUTHOR'S RIGHTS

  One useful function of this forum might be discussion of author's
rights. Then, somewhere down the line someone might be prepared to draft
a Charter of Author's Rights which individual authors could refer to when
having problems with an editor. By the same taken, perhaps there should
be a Charter of Editor's Rights.

  I present here one obvious, and one not-so-obvious, item  for consider-
ation:

1. Judgements concerning the acceptance, reviewing and publication of a
paper should be concerned with the characteristics of the paper itself
and not with the race, sex, creed or colour of the author.
   [One can recall that a century ago, female authors had to adopt a
male pseudonym to ensure fair evaluation (e.g. George Eliot).

2. A letter from an editor to an author stating that a paper has been
accepted (without qualification), means that the journal is irrevocably
committed to publishing the paper without undue delay.
   [Several years ago I had a firm letter of acceptance from an Editor.
Subsequently the editorship was changed and the the new editor declined
to honour the previous editor's commitments.]

   Do these two statements seem appropriate for inclusion in a Charter?

                                        Sincerely,
                                                  Don Forsdyke
                                                  Discussion Leader
From: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL (Jonathan Marder)
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Anonynimity in the review process (was Authors' rights)
Date: 24 Dec 92 13:08:01 GMT
Distribution: bionet

From:	HUAGRI::BITNET%"Postmaster@net.bio.net (Mail Delivery Subsystem)" 24-DEC-1992 11:50:53.51
To:	MARDER@HUJIAGRI <= MAILER@HUJIVMS (M SMTP.MAIL ASCII)
CC:	
Subj:	Returned mail: Can't create output

Received: by HUJIAGRI (HUyMail-4j4); Thu, 24 Dec 92 11:50:53 +0200
Received: by HUJIVMS via SMTP(134.172.2.69) (HUyMail-V6j);                      
          Thu, 24 Dec 92 11:50:05 +0200
Received: by net.bio.net (5.65/IG-2.0)
	id AA14721; Thu, 24 Dec 92 01:49:39 -0800
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 01:49:39 -0800
From: Postmaster@net.bio.net (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Can't create output
Message-Id: <9212240949.AA14721@net.bio.net>
To: marder@agri.huji.ac.il

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 "/usr/local/etc/fm jrnlnote-list"... Can't create output

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by net.bio.net (5.65/IG-2.0)
	id AA14718; Thu, 24 Dec 92 01:49:39 -0800
Message-Id: <9212240949.AA14718@net.bio.net>
To: jrnlnote
From: marder@agri.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: Author's Rights
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:49:35 GMT

In article <BzpvBE.4yA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, muriana@aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M.
 Muriana) writes:

> 	and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on**
> 	the journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the
> 	journal editor when a split decision is over-ruled).
> 	This would likely insure *better* reviews as well as give credit
> 	to those who perform such thankless tasks as journal reviews.
>
> Merry Christmas,
> Peter M. Muriana

I've often thought the same myself.  Actually I would go even further and
get the reviewers to write some brief comments to be published with the
paper.  I know that Nature already almost does this in the the "News and
Views" author often reviewed the article(s) he discusses.  But some formal
recognition of the reviewers' role is positive.  Maybe also reviewers would
be more careful if they knew that their names were to be publically
associated with the articles they approve.  I also believe that the
credibility of a publication would be increased by showing that articles
were scrutinised by well-known experts.

Regarding anonynimity for the authors, there are arguments in both
directions.  One so-far unstated objection is the issue of credibility.
How much should the "reputation" of the author influence the reviewer?
(perhaps a provocative question here ...)

--
                                 '      Jonathan B. Marder
Internet: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL |      Department of Agricultural Botany
Bitnet:   MARDER@HUJIAGRI        | /\/  The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Phone:    (08 or +9728) 481918   |/  \  Faculty of Agriculture
Fax:      (08 or +9728) 467763   /      P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
From: ccshf@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Henry Ford)
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Re: Author's rights
Date: 24 Dec 92 10:55:24 GMT
Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK


I'm sure we all have stories about editors /reviewers anonymously
blocking our papers and grant applications, but certainly in 
Britain in the ecological field this has caused sufficient problems 
for me to think that anonymous reviewing is bad. I am perfectly happy
to make criticisms of others papers with my name attached to the review
and now would not do otherwise.
Henry Ford
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: In defense of PNAS
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:11:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

> The idea of privileged
>access to publication in a prestigious journal based on membership of some
>hierarchy seems to conflict with the proposed first article.  PNAS is a collec-
>tive platform for the scientific viewpoints of some senior scientists, but not
>others. Sounds very un-American!
>                                Sincerely, Don Forsdyke (Discussion Leader)

Then you must really hate edited books. Imagine, a publisher lets a
distinguished person (just one! not every distinguished person is the
entire field!) pick a group of authors based on the person's own
prejudicial choice of the best science in a field (imagine that!
making decisions based on personal taste!).  In some cases, such a
book ends up being the definitive reference for a field for many
years, precisely because control is in the hands of a senior
individual with a vision for a field. Scientific publications are all
about documentation, communication, and inspiration -- documents exist
to serve the readers, not the authors.

I am arguing for diversity -- science is much better served by a
plurality of "publication rules" than a single standard.  Both
"strong-editor" and "weak-editor" publications should be allowed to
flourish, and PNAS is a specific example of a distributed
"strong-editor" format.  I resent making certain styles of
publications "illegal" -- censorship of form is just as pernicious as
censorship of content.
From: agb16@mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk (Alan Baxter)
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Re: Author's Rights
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:50:04 GMT
Organization: U. of Cambridge, England

With regards to the following:

"I found it interesting when looking for academic jobs a long time back
that faculty I spoke to at some small schools felt that reviewers were
excessively critical of their work versus papers that originated from 
"name" schools.  Of course, there may be other reasons (as I am sure  
scientists from name schools might quickly reply), but I was wondering
whether or not any journals ever review papers either completely blind
(no mention of the authors' identity and affiliation) or partially    
blind (e.g., no mention of the affiliation)?  This might be an        
interesting experiment?!?"


The problem with that is that science is very much a matter of reputation.
Unless reviewers actually repeat the experiment as part of the review
process the only guarantee that the results are real is the reputation
of the authors. I for one would be very distressed if certain workers
in my field (who have on several occasions fabricated results) were 
submitted to a review process as kind and forgiving as that given to 
an unknown.

Regards Alan
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:00:41 EST
From: <FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Re: Author's Rights
 <Dec.21.15.21.10.1992.3147@net.bio.net> <Dec.22.08.31.02.1992.708@net.bio.net>

  The Discussion so far has been in the context of the first "right" as listed
in my first entry (ref.1):

"1.Judgements concerning the acceptance, reviewing and publication of a
paper should be concerned with the characteristics of the paper itself
and not with the race, sex, creed or colour of the author."

  David Kristofferson (ref.2) realized some of the difficulties in reformulat-
ing a paper so that the authors name was not available. Alan Baxter (ref.3)
pointed out that past reputation of an author can count both positively and
negatively. However, there is one example of bias which is very blatent and
could be addressed. The following example will serve to make the point.

  The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA requires prospective
authors to submit papers to academy members for reviewing. The member then
formally submits the paper to the journal on the author's behalf. On three
occasions over the past two decades I have written to academy members in my
area of expertise asking if they would handle the reviewing of my papers. On
each occasion I was told that they could only submit 6 papers per year and
these submission opportunities were wanted for their own papers or were
"promised" to others. Thus, publication in PNAS is largely a closed shop and
does not comply with the above principle 1 of a proposed charter of authors'
rights. The remedy would be simply for the academy to require that members
NOT submit papers from their own laboratories, or on behalf of those with whom
they have a personal relationship which might lead to bias.

                                        Sincerely,
                                                  Don Forsdyke
                                                  Discussion Leader

(1) Forsdyke, D. R. (1992) Bionet.Journals.Note 1221, 1105
(2) Christoffersen, D. (1992) Bionet.Journals.Note 1222, 1631
(3) Baxter, A. (1992) Bionet.Journals.Note 1224, 750/
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
From: dmarble@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Duane F Marble)
Subject: Re: Anonynimity in the review process (was Authors' rights)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: bionet
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:28:37 GMT

For many years a University of Chicago journal (Current Anthropology)
has made a point of requesting public comment ("reviews") of articles
that were subject to a variety of opinions. This was done with the
author's approval and the article was held for two or three issues in
order to allow copies to be mailed to all readers who requested them
and to allow their short comments to be returned to the editors. These
public replies were then published in conjunction with the original
article and a summary comment by the author. This "star" treatment is
not done for all articles, but I have felt this was an excellent idea.
-- 
Duane F. Marble			       E-mail: dmarble@magnus.acs.osu.edu
Department of Geography                Telephone: (614) 292-2250
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210                   Fax: (614) 292-6213
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Re: Author's Rights
From: marder@agri.huji.ac.il
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:45:14 IST
Distribution: world
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Agriculture

In article <BzpvBE.4yA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, muriana@aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M. Muriana) writes:

> 	and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on**
> 	the journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the
> 	journal editor when a split decision is over-ruled).
> 	This would likely insure *better* reviews as well as give credit
> 	to those who perform such thankless tasks as journal reviews.
>
> Merry Christmas,
> Peter M. Muriana

I've often thought the same myself.  Actually I would go even further and
get the reviewers to write some brief comments to be published with the
paper.  I know that Nature already almost does this in the the "News and
Views" author often reviewed the article(s) he discusses.  But some formal
recognition of the reviewers' role is positive.  Maybe also reviewers would
be more careful if they knew that their names were to be publically
associated with the articles they approve.  I also believe that the
credibility of a publication would be increased by showing that articles
were scrutinised by well-known experts.

Regarding anonynimity for the authors, there are arguments in both
directions.  One so-far unstated objection is the issue of credibility.
How much should the "reputation" of the author influence the reviewer?
(perhaps a provocative question here ...)

--
                                 '      Jonathan B. Marder
Internet: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL |      Department of Agricultural Botany
Bitnet:   MARDER@HUJIAGRI        | /\/  The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Phone:    (08 or +9728) 481918   |/  \  Faculty of Agriculture
Fax:      (08 or +9728) 467763   /      P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Re: Author's Rights
Date: 28 Dec 1992 23:24:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <92363.150041FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>  The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA [..]
> The remedy would be simply for the academy to require that members
> NOT submit papers from their own laboratories, or on behalf of those with whom
> they have a personal relationship which might lead to bias.
>

I disagree.  PNAS has served well through the years as a platform for
timely and often controversial science, largely due to its publication
rules. If someone is deserving of membership in the National Academy,
they certainly can be trusted with editorial control over 24 pages a
year in a respected journal.  I view it as a collective platform for
the scientific viewpoints of senior science, not as a traditional
journal.
From: kristoff@net.bio.net (David Kristofferson)
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Re: Author's Rights
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:21:10 GMT
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology

I found it interesting when looking for academic jobs a long time back
that faculty I spoke to at some small schools felt that reviewers were
excessively critical of their work versus papers that originated from
"name" schools.  Of course, there may be other reasons (as I am sure
scientists from name schools might quickly reply), but I was wondering
whether or not any journals ever review papers either completely blind
(no mention of the authors' identity and affiliation) or partially
blind (e.g., no mention of the affiliation)?  This might be an
interesting experiment?!?

				Sincerely,

				Dave Kristofferson
				BIOSCI/bionet Manager

				kristoff@net.bio.net
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 08:52:12 EST
From: <FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Re: In defense of PNAS
 <1hvk5qINNe8e@agate.berkeley.edu>

In article Lazzaro (1992) Bnt.jrnl.note 1231, 2011  John Lazarro says:         n

Quote Forsdyke:
>> The idea of privileged
>>access to publication in a prestigious journal based on membership of some
>>hierarchy seems to conflict with the proposed first article.  PNAS is a      -
>collec
>>tive platform for the scientific viewpoints of some senior scientists, but
>not
>>others. Sounds very un-American!
>>                                Sincerely, Don Forsdyke (Discussion Leader)
Lazzaro replies:
>Then you must really hate edited books. Imagine, a publisher lets a
>distinguished person (just one! not every distinguished person is the
>entire field!) pick a group of authors based on the person's own
>prejudicial choice of the best science in a field (imagine that!
>making decisions based on personal taste!).

Forsdyke's response: Here the publisher and the distinguished person he choses
                     make their choices from the entire field of distinguished
                     scientists, not the particular group of distinguished
                     scientists who happen to be members of a particular club.

Lazzaro continues:                     Scientific publications are all
>about documentation, communication, and inspiration -- documents exist
>to serve the readers, not the authors.

Forsdyke replies: The readers are best served by unbiased access as possible to
                  the best authors in the field, who should NOT be selected on
                  the basis of race, religion, sex, creed, colour or membership
                  of a particular club.

>I am arguing for diversity -- science is much better served by a
>plurality of "publication rules" than a single standard.  Both
>"strong-editor" and "weak-editor" publications should be allowed to
>flourish, and PNAS is a specific example of a distributed
>"strong-editor" format.

Forsdyke replies: Being a "strong editor" means that you argue for diversity.
You do not grant preferential authorship to members of a particular club, which
has accepted as members certain distinguished scientists, but not others.

Lazzaro continues: I resent making certain styles of
>publications "illegal" -- censorship of form is just as pernicious as
>censorship of content.

Forsdyke replies: Censorship means deciding on the form and/or content of
some form of publication, based NOT on the merits of the publication per se,
but on the  perception of what is "good" for the reader. Basing publication on
what club the authors happen to belong to would seem to me a form of censorship
            Yours sincerely,
            Don Forsdyke. Discussion Leader.
From: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL (Jonathan Marder)
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Anonynimity in the review process (was Authors' rights)
Date: 24 Dec 92 13:09:02 GMT
Distribution: bionet

In article <BzpvBE.4yA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, muriana@aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M.
 Muriana) writes:

> 	and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on**
> 	the journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the
> 	journal editor when a split decision is over-ruled).
> 	This would likely insure *better* reviews as well as give credit
> 	to those who perform such thankless tasks as journal reviews.
>
> Merry Christmas,
> Peter M. Muriana

I've often thought the same myself.  Actually I would go even further and
get the reviewers to write some brief comments to be published with the
paper.  I know that Nature already almost does this in the the "News and
Views" author often reviewed the article(s) he discusses.  But some formal
recognition of the reviewers' role is positive.  Maybe also reviewers would
be more careful if they knew that their names were to be publically
associated with the articles they approve.  I also believe that the
credibility of a publication would be increased by showing that articles
were scrutinised by well-known experts.

Regarding anonynimity for the authors, there are arguments in both
directions.  One so-far unstated objection is the issue of credibility.
How much should the "reputation" of the author influence the reviewer?
(perhaps a provocative question here ...)

--
                                 '      Jonathan B. Marder
Internet: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL |      Department of Agricultural Botany
Bitnet:   MARDER@HUJIAGRI        | /\/  The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Phone:    (08 or +9728) 481918   |/  \  Faculty of Agriculture
Fax:      (08 or +9728) 467763   /      P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:29:18 EST
From: <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note
Subject: Re: Author's rights

muriana@aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M.  Muriana) writes:

>and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on** the
>journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the journal
>editor when a split decision is over-ruled).  This would likely insure
>*better* reviews as well as give credit to those who perform such thankless
>tasks as journal reviews.

I like Dave's idea of having the author(s) being anonymous to the reviewer,
although he raises a good point that, based on one citing one's own work it
might be rather easy to determine who wrote what.  In addition, those who
have been at it long enough may be able to discern a particular author's
style, etc.  Nevertheless, is there any reason why author(s) *shouldn't*
remain anonymous to the reviewer?

I see the benefit (necessity?) of keeping reviewers anonymous, but couldn't
the reviewers be made known to the author upon acceptance of a paper, so
that they can be included in acknowledgments?  This would take care of any
non-professional backlash toward the reviewers in the event of rejection and
would give credit for their contribution to the work, as suggested above.

One other point.  Shouldn't the author have access to ALL written
correspondence between reviewer, associate editor and editor regarding a
paper?  To those who may know, what sorts of things are communicated from an
associate editor to the editor that are blanked out on coppies of letters
forwarded to the autho Dowsn't the author have the right to know *all* of
the criteria for why a paper requires revision or was rejected?

Mark Kubiske                < MEK104@PSUVM.PSU.EDU >
School of Forest Resources
Penn State University