Re: speculation/testability Pt. II (peer review)

[rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)]

In response to my objections, Ken Carpenter writes:

> I would like to cite from "How to Write an Influential Review" by
> Michael L. Rosenzweig, Jerrold I. Davis and James H. Brown.  [ ...]
> It is reproduced from Plant Science Bulletin 40(1):6-8 (1994), a
> reprint of Plant Science Bulletin 34(2):5-7 (1988).

I'm not sure if Ken thought that I would find any of the quoted
material objectionable.  I didn't.  I share with Ken and Ralph the
desire to see "underdog" ideas given a fair hearing, and as such I
found all of the quoted advice rather agreeable.  If there's any
argument left, it probably boils down to the following as a supposedly
necessary caution to me:

>      "If we are to advance our science, it is necessary that we take
> risks and actively encourage the development of new concepts,
> theories, and methods.  If we as reviewers are afraid of mistakes,
> and insist that our peers write airtight proposals, then who will
> dare to tackle the difficult questions?  If we required that a
> proposal be so well described that we can visualize every aspect of
> the research, is the work really likely to produce any surprises or
> major new discoveries?"

I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever recommending for
publication a paper that I thought was wrong in its major premise.  In
the long run, probably everything ever published will be found to be
"wrong" in some sense.  I also don't think that an idea has to be
completely thought out prior to publication.  Part of the purpose of
publishing is to get others to think and give you feedback about your
ideas.  However... none of this directly addresses the issue of
testability.  Let's be extreme.  Ken, if I took a species of dinosaur
for which no hint of sexual dimorphism had ever been found, and then
argued that it must have been a parthenogenetic species (a la some
whiptailed lizards) would you think it worthy of publication?  Say
yes, and I'll submit to JVP with you as a suggested reviewer ;-)  

-- 
Mickey Rowe     (rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu)