[OPE-L:5038] Discrimantion and Proving it

From: John Ernst (ernst@pipeline.com)
Date: Thu Feb 22 2001 - 16:24:19 EST

Jerry wrote:

Re Andrew's[OPE-L:5036]:

> Cool.  But perhaps also question-begging.  What would you consider
> to be proof, Jerry?  Under what conditions would you acknowledge
> that suppression has indeed occurred?

"I think that's a fair question. I would consider proof in this context to
be statements (written or verbal and witnessed) from the editors and/or
referees that the reason why articles were rejected was because they
represented a TSSI perspective. Even better, would be statements that the
body in question has a *policy* of rejecting submissions from TSSI

My Comment:   I agree, Jerry.  But you know as well as I that even if there
were a written
policy, you'd be hard pressed to find the document unless you had some
inside help. Why 
you're on your high horse on this is beyond me.  I note that at no point do
you suggest that you'd like to see some of the rejected papers as well as
the reviewer's comments.  Seems
to me that that would be the only convincing evidence.  

Jerry goes on:

Anyway, that seems like a reasonable answer to your question. If someone
else has a better answer, then I am open to suggestions.

What I think is *not* evidence is *just* statistics which show that x out
of y  many articles/reviews from those advocating a TSSI have been
rejected. I reject this as the basis for claiming supression because there
could be other, legitimate reasons for rejecting submissions.

My comment:   Seems to me that if x out y are rejected you'd at least want
to sit down and read some of the papers as well as the comments of the
reviewers.  I think you may be more than a little surprised.  In Fed courts
these days in discrimination cases, considerable weight is given to events
that can occur by chance with less than a .05 probability.   (The Bush folk
take your position on this and such stats may soon not matter much.)   

You and I have both read statements on this list that reject TSS without
looking into the
matter.  This is not to say all rejections are in this category but
certainly some have been.  
Why would you not think that this may occur when it comes to RRPE?  

Hopefully,  the conference will take up matters other than this nonsense.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST