🚀 go-pugleaf

PSYCOLOQUY                  Mon,  4 Feb 91       Volume 2 : Issue   2
      Consensus Journals/Becker
      Consensus Journals/Stodolsky

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Stodolsky <david%harald.ruc.dk@pucc>
Subject: Consensus Journals/Stodolsky

"Gordon Becker" <becker@UNOMA1.BITNET> writes in
PSYCOLOQUY                  Thu,  3 Jan 91       Volume 2 : Issue  1:

Reply to Stodolsky's reply to Becker's Comment on D.S. Stodolsky's
"Consensus Journals" in PSYCOLOQUY VI #16

The distinction that Stodolsky would like to make between
"anonymity" and "pseudonyms" is, to use his own expression,
"precisely incorrect", since the reviewer remains anonymous
to all but the moderator ... which is precisely the same
situation we have today for anonymous reviews: The editor knows
who the reviewer is but nobody else does.
----

Gordon Becker has apparently not taken my advice to reread my article and the
supporting materials. If he had, he would have noted that the whole point of a
Consensus Journal is to make the moderator unnecessary. Given this, I see no
benefit in responding to his comments. I suggest he read these materials with
the utmost care :-), before commenting further.

David S. Stodolsky                  Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38
Department of Computer Science                Home: + 45 31 95 92 82
Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center        Internet: david@ruc.dk
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark        Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01

From: "Gordon Becker" <becker@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: Consensus Journals/Becker

David Stodolsky replies to my criticisms in
PSYCOLOQUY          Thu,  3 Jan 91       Volume 2 : Issue  1:
Reply to Stodolsky's reply to Becker's Comment on D.S.
Stodolsky's "Consensus Journals" in PSYCOLOQUY VI #16

"Gordon Becker has apparently not taken my advice to reread my
article and the supporting materials. If he had, he would have
noted that the whole point of a Consensus Journal is to make the
moderator unnecessary. Given this, I see no benefit in responding
to his comments. I suggest he read these materials with the
utmost care :-), before commenting further. "

He makes this reply after quoting only the following parts of one
of my criticisms,

"The distinction that Stodolsky would like to make between
"anonymity" and "pseudonyms" is, to use his own expression,
"precisely incorrect", since the reviewer remains anonymous
to all but the moderator ... which is precisely the same
situation we have today for anonymous reviews: The editor knows
who the reviewer is but nobody else does."

Apparently Becker would like readers to believe that stating his
GOAL for consensus journals PROVES his methods attain that
goal, that my substituting the term "moderator" for his
term "mediator" is so distorted that he need not rebut my
specific criticisms, and/or that if the mediator does NOT know
the identity of the referee than the referee is NOT anonymous.
I fail to see the logic in any of these positions.

Stodolsky states, in his article,

"... referees send reviews to a mediator ... The mediator issues
an invitation report showing submitted judgments, the degree of
consensus achieved, the number of consensus positions identified,
degree of knowledge of each referee, and so on. If consensus has
been reached, invited referees are expected to submit articles
... A referee becomes an author only after a submitted article
has been published by the mediator ... Subsequent submission of
an articles by selected referees and their publication by the
mediator would complete the cycle of operation."

If I was wrong in thinking that the "mediator" knew the identity
of the reviewer when (s)he "issues an invitation", or when (s)he
states "the degree of knowledge of each referee", then I would think that
the referee would be "anonymous" even to the mediator and the anonymity
would be greater not less than I had assummed in my original criticism. The
criticism would be stronger, not weaker, by such an error and it certainly
would provide no reason for Stodolsky to ignore the criticism. His
failure to rebut any of my specific criticisms and his attempt to confuse the
issue by unsupported claims that I misunderstand his article suggests that he
is unable to defend his position. He should heed his own advice and reread his
own article, paying special attention to his statement,

"... a rebuttal claiming that a target article is flawed is
explicitly linked to the target. Failure to rebut that claim in
turn has much the same effect as an overwhelming consensus that
the target article is incorrect."

Until he rebuts my specific criticisms of his Consensus Journal
article, his own arguments in that article decree "an
overwhelming consensus that the target article is incorrect."

Gordon Becker UNO BITNET"becker@UNOMA1"

------------------------------

                             PSYCOLOQUY
                           is sponsored by
                     the Science Directorate of
                the American Psychological Association
                           (202) 955-7653

                              Co-Editors:

(scientific discussion)         (professional/clinical discussion)

    Stevan Harnad          Perry London, Dean,     Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.)
Psychology Department  Graduate School of Applied   Graduate School of Applied
Princeton University   and Professional Psychology  and Professional Psychology
                            Rutgers University           Rutgers University

                           Assistant Editors:

     Malcolm Bauer                               John Pizutelli
  Psychology Department                      Psychology Department
  Princeton University                         Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************