Dear Ken
I am sorry that I have not included your name on the list of the people.
there was no intention from my side to form any political coalition. it
was just that i sleepily woke up this morning and was a bit careless in
my counting. would you please forgive me? and when i look more
carefully, i didn't count Tim, John, and many more others who have at
one point or the other entered this discussion. and i hope that they did
not think that i had excluded them.
when i said "I see peer review in pretty much the same way as Eduardo
does and I imagine .... " i was refering to the general idea that was
laid out by Eduardo and i have included a 'trimmed' version of his post
at the very end of my previous post. i thought, that was enough to
indicate what i was meaning.
and i want to make clear that I NEVER NEVER NEVER said the peer review
was evil. all i said was
"Is the practice of peer review now not the same as slavery in the past
in the
sense that it may be extremely difficult for us to conceive a science or
reputable discipline without "Club House" type of peer review, managed
by
editors and conference organisors?"
please pay attention to the fact that i was using the concept/practice
of slavery to stress that something that was once considered a right
thing to do can be considered a terrible thing to do later on in human
history. i also wanted to point out that it is very difficult to
conceive certain idea/practice to be otherwise simply because we are
conditioned by it. sorry that i have not made explicit what i wanted to
say.
and in terms of science and design, i have submitted my viewpoint to
Alec Robertson's conference DDR4 and maybe he will publish it as part of
the proceedings. until then, i will hold my mouth.
anyway, thanks to your response and look forward to your contribution.
rosan
(language is a source of misunderstanding ... who said that?)
|