Message from discussion Publishing scientific information

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: name_and_address_suppl...@hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: Publishing scientific information
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:31:09 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 28
Sender: r...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: j...@darwin.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <cn5jtd$13vk$1@darwin.ediacara.org>
References: <cn02bu$2c6b$1@darwin.ediacara.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1100370669 36855 128.100.83.246 (13 Nov 2004 18:31:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:31:09 +0000 (UTC)

"John Edser" <ed...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:<cn02bu$2c6b$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...

> If the Peer review process had worked
> correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
> evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
> with many other misused oversimplified models.

I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
something chronically wrong with the peer review process.

Well, I have in the past invested some of my time into examining your
reasons for this crucial assumption, and was not persuaded in the
slightest. What I saw was gross mischaracterisation and ignorance of
current social evolutionary thought.

But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
in this field, are wrong. I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
Reviewers have to give reasons for rejecting a paper, and these are
made available to the author. A while back I suggested that you
prepare a manuscript and submit to Journal of Theoretical Biology,
which seems most appropriate for such a work, and is where Hamilton
published his classic 1964 papers. Did you pursue this at all? I'd be
interested to hear about the results.