Re Andrew's[OPE-L:5036]: > Cool. But perhaps also question-begging. What would you consider > to be proof, Jerry? Under what conditions would you acknowledge > that suppression has indeed occurred? I think that's a fair question. I would consider proof in this context to be statements (written or verbal and witnessed) from the editors and/or referees that the reason why articles were rejected was because they represented a TSSI perspective. Even better, would be statements that the body in question has a *policy* of rejecting submissions from TSSI advocates. Anyway, that seems like a reasonable answer to your question. If someone else has a better answer, then I am open to suggestions. What I think is *not* evidence is *just* statistics which show that x out of y many articles/reviews from those advocating a TSSI have been rejected. I reject this as the basis for claiming supression because there could be other, legitimate reasons for rejecting submissions. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST