Jim Till wrote:
> Perhaps there's some kind of 'scholarly consensus' underlying the
> criteria for pre-screening that are being applied by the editors of
> ClinMed NetPrints. But, what are the criteria?
Scholarly consensus follows upon publication, regardless of whether
something is "pre-screened" or peer reviewed -- this is a tautology --
and it is just nonsense to talk as if either method of editorial control
is based on it. From the point of view of the researcher in a field,
the only significant scholarly consensus is that which is constituted by
people in the field actually accepting the claimed research results in
the sense of making use of the results themselves in their own further
inquiry, regardless of the form in which the claim was made public.
There could not possibly be any such criteria for primary publication.
It would hardly be surprising if what the gatekeepers do not permit to
pass through the public gates does not become generally accepted, if the
field is one in which the gatekeepers are efficient. What is unknown
obviously cannot become commonly accepted. The question, then, is
whether scholarly consensus is to be limited to what is found possibly
acceptable by the gatekeepers, in the form of editors and their
consultants. Gatekeepers tend to think so, needless to say, though
dissenters can occasionally be found. In any case, others may smell
something amiss in these pretensions.
Joseph Ransdell
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph Ransdell <ransdell_at_door.net> <bnjmr_at_ttu.edu>
Dept of Philosophy - 806 742-3158 (FAX 742-0730)
Texas Tech University - Lubbock, Texas 79409 USA
http://www.door.net/arisbe (Peirce website)
http://www.door.net/arisbe/homepage/ransdell.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Received on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 19:17:43 GMT