T80SMS1%NIU@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/26/90)
Comments on Stodolsky's proposal for _consensus journals_: The notion of needing consensus to publish is exactly the WRONG way to do science. All that you achieve is the freezing of current opinion. Some of the biggest advances in science have come from those willing to buck the consesus (eg. Pasteur and germ theory; Wegener and continental drift). The great strength of the present system is that almost any idea can get published somewhere. Some journals make it a practice to publish articles that defy the consensus (eg. Evol. Theory). The review process is useful in bringing out errors of fact and analysis, unoriginality, or bad writing. But beyond those functions, a good editor knows how to separate valid criticisms from prejudice. The other problem I see is with the problem of resolving issues where consensus is lacking. The thorniest issues may take years or decades to resolve as typically new data is necessary for the resolution. Is the system that you are proposing able to deal with arguments on this time scale? I suppose that I have just participated in your review system. It is an interesting idea, one which I think should be studied and argued despite the fact that I disagree with it. Samuel M. Scheiner Department of Biological Sciences Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 Phone: (815) 753-7847 Fax: (815) 753-0461 Bitnet: t80sms1@niu