IMS_Blog

Ed talked about the response to a paper recently submitted to a scientific journal (which shall remain nameless). I feel this deserves some response, if for no other reason than my name also appears on the paper he mentions (which given that I don’t agree with some of the tone of his post makes me a little uncomfortable).

First let me say that had Ed not said anything I wouldn’t have, for part of my problem is that I don’t believe the blogsphere is the correct place to discuss such matters – especially before the paper has been published or finally rejected. The peer review process is vital to science for many reasons (which I’m certain Ed is aware). That is not to say it’s perfect, but nobody has produced a better system as yet. That the range and length of the two replies differs so greatly is one of the reasons that there are two to start with. And frankly it is the choice of the referee to comment on what and how they see fit. What one sees as pedantic and trivial points are undoubtedly anothers personal bugbears (I know I have mine). That they may have missed a point or result is part of the whole process, our chance to explain more clearly to them, as they represent the scientific community at large (yes, of course this sort of dialogue with the community may continue after publication but how many times have you directly contacted the author of a paper? Best to have some form of conversation before hand). In the end we address there points as best we can, appeasing some for the sake of the greater peace and answering others in an effort to clarify and convince. For partly what we are about is convincing others. A new publication is, by its nature, new, untested, unseen (at least in the ideal world). That others might question its assurtions is only natural and indeed one of those vital parts, to stop us convincing ourselves of the truths which aren’t. Of course, we hopefully have thought all these questions before and hence can answer them but that’s the point. If the referee were not there to ask what we may consider silly, trivial, misinformed questions, would we ever ask them of ourselves?

Ed—this is not intended as a personal attack. You posted about something with which I am directly involved and my professional ethics demanded that I make clear that your comments did not necessarily represent my views (as, given that it’s clear from previous posts here that I read your blog, silence may have implied). I strongly suspect that I may well have taken the post just a little too seriously but that’s one of the great problems with the written word, it’s very difficult to judge tone. Oh, and be careful, I think someone called Eve is listening in to the referees.