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 --- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::