> But, the recent discussion underscores a really important issue, one that
> I've seen increase dramatically with on-line publications and journals
> managed  by journalists, not experienced scientists.  Here, I'm showing my
>  age.
> I'm used to a system of editorial  oversight and peer-review,  where a
> seasoned scientist or group of scientists act as the editors.  They
>  imposed a
> level of screening for objectivity, knowledge of the field, and
>  appropriate
> design.
>

Add that many papers are put on line before they are reviewed. There is
"Publish by press release" where the paper may never see the light of day
but the headlines are out as fodder for the advocates and quoted as proof.

Then there is shopping papers to journals until one picks it up. The
journal may be obscure or new and willing to print anything.

The worst are "closed" journals where any advocate will be published in
spite of the poor quality of the research (or lack of it) while the
dissenters are shut out. Nothing new here.

The problem with all that Jerry noted as well as what I brought out is that
really bad scientific studies can make it into the discussion of important
policy decisions. Just look at our recent discussion. Lab studies are fine,
but it is very hard to move them from the petri dish to the field. You can
cure any disease in the world in a petri dish.

Jerry's insight is invaluable because he is a field scientist as well as a
lab scientist. It is amazing what happens when you shift from the lab to
the field and are confronted with the variables of the real world.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm