[OPE-L:5014] The RRPE Controversy

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 15:00:58 EST

In [OPE-L:5013] Paul Z asked:

> Which of us have lived in Andrew's shoes?:
>     "Of the last 8 manuscripts submitted by proponents of the TSSI to the
> RRPE (not ROPE), 1, a paper of mine on the Okishio theorem, was accepted.
> 5 have been rejected, including a *book review* written by an author with
> a publication list longer than your arm.  (The RRPE's rejection rate on
> book reviews is only about 10%.)   What about the remaining 2 manuscripts?
> Oh, they were returned
> without even being sent to referees." (OPE 4990)

Not I, nor you.  Yet I am not prepared to say on the basis of the above that
there has been a systematic "repression" of  TSSI perspectives by the
_RRPE_. Are you?

As someone who is an editor of another important radical political economy
journal, you must be aware that there are a number of legitimate reasons for
rejecting articles. Indeed, there might even be circumstances when rejecting
book reviews and/or rejecting submissions without sending them first to
referees is legitimate. Don't you agree?

I'm *not* saying with certainty that there wasn't discrimination against
TSSI submissions. But, I'm not prepared to accept  Andrew's judgment on that
topic without  first examining the evidence and hearing from the other side.
Or do you think we should reject Gil's denial out-of-hand?

Although there should be some kind of way of addressing such grievences I
don't really think this is the best venue for that. Do you?

Finally, I consider it to be highly improper to list the name of an
"anoymous" referee on a Net list that can be accessed by the public through
our archives. As an editor, don't you think that the names of anoymous
referees should remain anonymous?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST