fyi .. would help to have more passenger rail. Peggy
-- Forwarded message --
From: Michael Ackley rrx...@bresnan.net
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Fwd: State Passenger Rail Coalition
To: Kay Rossi k...@kxlh.com, Virginia Shelton vir...@aol.com,
ctywl...@nemont.net,
Ah, I stand corrected then. Sounds like both a fascinating question and a
difficult problem.
At the risk of pointing in yet another bad direction, it seems to me that a
cognate to this problem could be the Rosenthal's file drawer issue in
research; i.e. the work that goes unsubmitted out of a
Thus spake Ian P. Cook circa 27/01/09 06:59 AM:
At the risk of pointing in yet another bad direction, it seems to me that a
cognate to this problem could be the Rosenthal's file drawer issue in
research; i.e. the work that goes unsubmitted out of a (correct or
incorrect) assumption that it
Peer Review is indeed an excellent preserver of status quo. For the AIAA
(the main aerospace institution) the standard procedure is that the signed
draft paper is submitted by editors to reviewers, who then send anonymous
comments to the author. Twenty years ago, as a Fellow of said august
Hi,
Or you could separate the review process from the publication process.
E.g. pre-print repositories could provide peer-review services. If a
journal wants a paper it can search for highly regarded articles in
pre-print repositories and request from authors for the copyright
permissions to
Peter-This is an interesting proposal. Having served on the editorial board of a number of medical publications, I agree that the peer review process tends to preserve the status quo. The standard for an established author from a "reputable institution" may be, at least unconsciously, different
