Re Comment on Pusztai on the Lancet article
- To: papadop@PEAK.ORG
- Subject: Re Comment on Pusztai on the Lancet article
- From: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:06:59 +0100 (MET)
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-MD5: 6YiLPvlNnvHO1Q0W3DprVw==
- Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Reply-To: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
You (=MichaelP) sent :
>This is not an attack on anything else said by Dr. Pusztai.
No problem : any argument can (must ?) be said.
>BUT as an applied mathematician with several papers published in
>Proc.Roy.Soc A , I'm surprised by the parenthetic remark that "the RS does
>not publish peer-reviewed scientific papers". Whatever the current
>practice may be - I had to submit my papers through a Fellow of the RS,--
>which seemed to be a formality because I thought it reasonable to approach
>a Fellow who worked in my field , and who already knew me or my work,-
>they were then put through peer review and I would eventually receive
>copies of the reviewer comments. I don't see this as being significantly
>different from the practse in other scientific journals in MY field.
I happen not to know the RS, but its french equivalent where Ialready submited
some profeessional article.
at the Academy of Sciences (AS) in france, the academicians decide by
themselves. In theory, the procedure is that they do it by themselves, but
of course, they often ask for advice to peoples.
For one article of mine, their was NO referee. For an article of a friend,
there were 3 referee.
SO, you are right, but Pusztai can be right too if the RS is similar to
the french AS.