Jerry wrote: 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." My Comment: I agree, Jerry. But you know as well as I that even if there were a written policy, you'd be hard pressed to find the document unless you had some inside help. Why you're on your high horse on this is beyond me. I note that at no point do you suggest that you'd like to see some of the rejected papers as well as the reviewer's comments. Seems to me that that would be the only convincing evidence. Jerry goes on: 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. My comment: Seems to me that if x out y are rejected you'd at least want to sit down and read some of the papers as well as the comments of the reviewers. I think you may be more than a little surprised. In Fed courts these days in discrimination cases, considerable weight is given to events that can occur by chance with less than a .05 probability. (The Bush folk take your position on this and such stats may soon not matter much.) You and I have both read statements on this list that reject TSS without looking into the matter. This is not to say all rejections are in this category but certainly some have been. Why would you not think that this may occur when it comes to RRPE? Hopefully, the conference will take up matters other than this nonsense. John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST