Dear Rosan and other reviewing addicts

A long time ago, maybe in January, I closed one of my posts about
conferences promising that I would go to the conference marketing subject.
As a conference organiser, this is a subject very demanding. One must see
if the conference is inside your institution research strategy along with
attracting researchers that can contribute to that strategy. Defining the
limits on themes is the first cellular line of defence for the "club" that
is proposing a conference. I imagine that in Journals is very much the
same. Of course that you can think of an "Universal Science, Art,
Entomology, Gastronomy, Wormology & Design Quarterly" or "The Journal for
the Development of Almost Anything", but most of the Scientific Journals
are either affiliated to groups of journals under greater institutions or
focused on the vocation of institutions. Peer reviewing with open nuances
or with double blind and tied hands is objectively, on a first stage,
destined to keep what is reviewed in focus.
My story about skiing was meant to mean that even great bullfighters are
not directly excellent skiers.
Back to Marketing:  A conference, unless is the "convention" type, has its
targets, both internal and external. Funding, future and current has
something to do with it, also. Focusing depends on what stage the
organising institution is.
As an organiser, my nightmare is that no abstracts will came. Peer
reviewing will help attracting interested and focused people.
Unfortunately, most of them suffers from the Blanche syndrome. They will
be funded if Marlon Brando decides that the conference is important (this
Brando assumes very forms but I assume that every Blanche know who he is).
Brando, tends to rate things since he deals with "bucks". Bucks that are
coming in and bucks that are going out.
Other organisers will have the problem of multiple and infinite choices
and peering will help to distribute the responsibility of deciding who is
accepted.
In the middle there is just the fun of meeting people that has something
to show and tell.

Obviously, all and much more of this, doesn't have nothing to do with
Moral issues. It does, however, with Ethics. Although Moral is associated
with Ethics, it is just part of it. Ethics deals with human action and
relies more on an axiology, a theory of the values considered to be true.
As I pointed out, trust is a major question in peer reviewing. Yours,
Rosan, and others objections to peer reviewing are distrustful about
peers, about the notion of peering, about if peers are the best choice to
review, or if they should be hiding before, during or afterwards
reviewing? I'm starting to feel like Frodo running away from Shelob. I
think it is even worse: I feel like both Frodo and Shelob. Is there any
Sams out there?
There will be more and more sticky threads on this matter. So lets stick
to something: Back to old Peirce, Truth is the Belief shared by all that
conducts scientific research. Back to old Goodman, the question is not
what is science but when is science. (this statement is about Art). Back
to old Wittgenstein, maybe science is something that is only definable by
family resemblance (like games). So, when is science can be only be
identified by those who, in the conscience of sharable opinions, will be
able to manipulate the limits of family resemblance. Of course that we
could delegate this power of establishing truthful opinions on "The Kids
Next Door" or even on Britney Spears, but peers, as part of a community,
seems to more suitable to the job. Your point, as I tend to understand it,
is that the community of peers should be larger. I totally agree. But
would it be so large that would include Britney Spears?
A wonderful solution came to me, at this point: all submitters for a
conference or a journal must review, at least two other papers. In this
model, we can even think of self-service sushi strips where papers just
automatically runs on your computer and you just pick them out (only two).
Of course, if you wait for the next round some may had just picked up the
ones you wanted and you must stick to the dullest ones.
Certainly that this scheme should be double blinded, with code access to
the strip, and, maybe, only key-words running on the strip.
Maybe institutions (Marlon Brandos) will start to only fund participations
in "sushi-strip double blind real peer reviewed" conferences.

The question, here, remains: what is trustful or truthful and what is
false?

Jenny wrote:
"Seems to me the range, scale and recognised expertise associated with the
list has allowed it to act as an informal forum for reviewing ideas, as
well as building and sharing them.
Not sure why this one works though, and so many others don't. Would
certainly want to read a journal based on the development of ideas already
explored, critiqued and added to by such a cross disciplinary group, and
guess it would do more for the discipline faster than the current process".

Jenny just put a band-aid on the wound. Conferences and Journals are
parties that you must "dress up" to go. It is not certain that scientific
advance will come directly from that forums. More informal reunions can do
better for science than that sort of balls (either they are debutants
parties or senior citizens dinners). That doesn't mean that we don’t like
to organise and go to balls since they include, also, informal forums.
The strongest thing about this "cross disciplinary group" is that it
doesn't gives any credit whatsoever for any kind of evaluation. "Faster
than the current process" means freely than the current process. So,
truthful, sharable, with family resemblance, opinions are available due to
the pro bono contributions of all who wants to participate, some of them,
peerish like individuals, others just throwing coments, asking questions
or help and others just watching.
My concern, at this moment, is that the contributions are, at the moment,
resumed to about 10 people (they know who they are) and, maybe, they (we)
are just suffocating possible contributions from others.
Even in Jenny's wishes there are some perils

I will shut up for a while,


Best

Eduardo