Ruth said:

> The correct answer to the question why honeybee foragers sometimes
> dance without dance attendants, is: They don't.

The observation was:

>   a smaller (but significant) proportion of the dancing
>   bees were apparently ignored by their sisters.

Anyone using words like "correct answer" in regard to an
observation-rich area like "bee dance" is revealing that
they not only have a firmly-held opinion, but that they
are not in the mood to let new observations or experiments
influence them.

Chris said:

> ...my daughter who assists with editing a peer reviewed scientific magazine
> and we discussed the peer reviewing process. In a small world where most of
> the participants know each other one way or another all the corrupt influences

> you would expect, from mutual back scratching downwards, are common. It is
only
> the commercial influence of advertising that keeps the corruption in check as
> if the magazine loses its reputation it loses its advertising revenue.

What a depressing view.  It sounds to me like she works for a small publication
covering a tiny fraction of an unregarded backwater of science.  In most
specializations, there are simply too many researchers for everyone to even
know OF each other.  Good journals also make reviewers sign agreements that:

a) Demand that reviewers recuse themselves from reviewing work
   by anyone they know and like (or dislike).  Good journals
   would also NEVER include someone in a review who has published
   in the specific area at issue.

b) Expect scientists to "play fair", since a corrupt review process
   is just as corrupt when it is YOUR turn to publish.

Good journals also pay careful attention to reviewer comments and author
replies, which can reveal far too much at times, and thereby, expose
someone who is acting in an unethical manner.  When dealing with human
beings, one has to admit that anyone can be "less than fair" at times.
Comments made by reviewers that appear to be "unfair" never reach the
author.

My only experience is with the major physics journals, and even the
reviewer agreements themselves are "confidential".  The whole concept
of peer review is based upon the assumption that no one is going to
mention that they are a reviewer for "Journal A" in the area of
"sub-specialty X".  To do so is to violate the agreement, and loose
the beer money that comes in from participating in reviews.

If you think about it, reviewers who found a submitted paper to be
deficient and were REALLY corrupt would not offer too many objections,
to assure that the paper would be published mostly "as is".  They would
then promptly write a paper of their own, ripping the paper at hand to
shreds.  This would enhance their reputation as a "deep thinker", and
would also add another published paper to their C.V., which directly helps
their "career" at their employer.

That's why every review is done by multiple people, including at least
one "young gun", since there is a very high probability that a young gun
will view the process and task as "an honor", rather than an obligation/burden,
and work hard on trying to "help" the author(s) on every weak point.

The bad news is that people are not perfect.  The good news is that
even the checks and balances have checks and balances!  The best
trick is seldom played by journals, but it involves taking a
copy of the submitted paper and one of the sets of comments offered
by a reviewer, and sending them to YET ANOTHER reviewer with a request
to evaluate the rigor and fairness of the review/comments.

  jim  (Who reminds all that "Science"
        is the art of infallability,
        perputrated upon non-scientists.)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::