Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!gatech!udel!princeton!pucc!PSYC From: harnad@clarity.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) Newsgroups: sci.psychology.digest Subject: PSYCOLOQUY V2 #2 (discussion : Consensus Journals - 131 lines) Message-ID: <9102041929.AA05465@psycho.Princeton.EDU> Date: 4 Feb 91 18:06:30 GMT Sender: VMNNPOST@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Listserv to Netnews Gateway) Organization: Listserv to Netnews Gateway at pucc.Princeton.EDU Lines: 126 Approved: PSYC@PUCC PSYCOLOQUY Mon, 4 Feb 91 Volume 2 : Issue 2 Consensus Journals/Becker Consensus Journals/Stodolsky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Stodolsky Subject: Consensus Journals/Stodolsky "Gordon Becker" writes in PSYCOLOQUY Thu, 3 Jan 91 Volume 2 : Issue 1: Reply to Stodolsky's reply to Becker's Comment on D.S. Stodolsky's "Consensus Journals" in PSYCOLOQUY VI #16 The distinction that Stodolsky would like to make between "anonymity" and "pseudonyms" is, to use his own expression, "precisely incorrect", since the reviewer remains anonymous to all but the moderator ... which is precisely the same situation we have today for anonymous reviews: The editor knows who the reviewer is but nobody else does. ---- Gordon Becker has apparently not taken my advice to reread my article and the supporting materials. If he had, he would have noted that the whole point of a Consensus Journal is to make the moderator unnecessary. Given this, I see no benefit in responding to his comments. I suggest he read these materials with the utmost care :-), before commenting further. David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38 Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 95 92 82 Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01 From: "Gordon Becker" Subject: Consensus Journals/Becker David Stodolsky replies to my criticisms in PSYCOLOQUY Thu, 3 Jan 91 Volume 2 : Issue 1: Reply to Stodolsky's reply to Becker's Comment on D.S. Stodolsky's "Consensus Journals" in PSYCOLOQUY VI #16 "Gordon Becker has apparently not taken my advice to reread my article and the supporting materials. If he had, he would have noted that the whole point of a Consensus Journal is to make the moderator unnecessary. Given this, I see no benefit in responding to his comments. I suggest he read these materials with the utmost care :-), before commenting further. " He makes this reply after quoting only the following parts of one of my criticisms, "The distinction that Stodolsky would like to make between "anonymity" and "pseudonyms" is, to use his own expression, "precisely incorrect", since the reviewer remains anonymous to all but the moderator ... which is precisely the same situation we have today for anonymous reviews: The editor knows who the reviewer is but nobody else does." Apparently Becker would like readers to believe that stating his GOAL for consensus journals PROVES his methods attain that goal, that my substituting the term "moderator" for his term "mediator" is so distorted that he need not rebut my specific criticisms, and/or that if the mediator does NOT know the identity of the referee than the referee is NOT anonymous. I fail to see the logic in any of these positions. Stodolsky states, in his article, "... referees send reviews to a mediator ... The mediator issues an invitation report showing submitted judgments, the degree of consensus achieved, the number of consensus positions identified, degree of knowledge of each referee, and so on. If consensus has been reached, invited referees are expected to submit articles ... A referee becomes an author only after a submitted article has been published by the mediator ... Subsequent submission of an articles by selected referees and their publication by the mediator would complete the cycle of operation." If I was wrong in thinking that the "mediator" knew the identity of the reviewer when (s)he "issues an invitation", or when (s)he states "the degree of knowledge of each referee", then I would think that the referee would be "anonymous" even to the mediator and the anonymity would be greater not less than I had assummed in my original criticism. The criticism would be stronger, not weaker, by such an error and it certainly would provide no reason for Stodolsky to ignore the criticism. His failure to rebut any of my specific criticisms and his attempt to confuse the issue by unsupported claims that I misunderstand his article suggests that he is unable to defend his position. He should heed his own advice and reread his own article, paying special attention to his statement, "... a rebuttal claiming that a target article is flawed is explicitly linked to the target. Failure to rebut that claim in turn has much the same effect as an overwhelming consensus that the target article is incorrect." Until he rebuts my specific criticisms of his Consensus Journal article, his own arguments in that article decree "an overwhelming consensus that the target article is incorrect." Gordon Becker UNO BITNET"becker@UNOMA1" ------------------------------ PSYCOLOQUY is sponsored by the Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association (202) 955-7653 Co-Editors: (scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion) Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.) Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology Rutgers University Rutgers University Assistant Editors: Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli Psychology Department Psychology Department Princeton University Rutgers University End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest ******************************