Jim Till wrote: > Perhaps there's some kind of 'scholarly consensus' underlying the > criteria for pre-screening that are being applied by the editors of > ClinMed NetPrints. But, what are the criteria?
Scholarly consensus follows upon publication, regardless of whether something is "pre-screened" or peer reviewed -- this is a tautology -- and it is just nonsense to talk as if either method of editorial control is based on it. From the point of view of the researcher in a field, the only significant scholarly consensus is that which is constituted by people in the field actually accepting the claimed research results in the sense of making use of the results themselves in their own further inquiry, regardless of the form in which the claim was made public. There could not possibly be any such criteria for primary publication. It would hardly be surprising if what the gatekeepers do not permit to pass through the public gates does not become generally accepted, if the field is one in which the gatekeepers are efficient. What is unknown obviously cannot become commonly accepted. The question, then, is whether scholarly consensus is to be limited to what is found possibly acceptable by the gatekeepers, in the form of editors and their consultants. Gatekeepers tend to think so, needless to say, though dissenters can occasionally be found. In any case, others may smell something amiss in these pretensions. Joseph Ransdell -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joseph Ransdell <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Dept of Philosophy - 806 742-3158 (FAX 742-0730) Texas Tech University - Lubbock, Texas 79409 USA http://www.door.net/arisbe (Peirce website) http://www.door.net/arisbe/homepage/ransdell.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
