ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Letter: Peer Review

The article "Ruling Could Inhibit Peer Review Candor" [The Scientist, June 25, 1990, page 1] surprised me by its one-sidedness. Although the Penn/EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] case was briefly described, the article explored only the ruling's potential negative impact, and only from the point of view of the academy. Surely, there are meritorious counterarguments or other viewpoints worth mentioning. In fact, if the ruling were to inhibit "candid" expositions of race or gender

Michael Shimazu

The article "Ruling Could Inhibit Peer Review Candor" [The Scientist, June 25, 1990, page 1] surprised me by its one-sidedness.

Although the Penn/EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] case was briefly described, the article explored only the ruling's potential negative impact, and only from the point of view of the academy. Surely, there are meritorious counterarguments or other viewpoints worth mentioning.

In fact, if the ruling were to inhibit "candid" expositions of race or gender bias on the part of reviewers, I would regard this as greater cause for celebration than for worry.

MICHAEL SHIMAZU
Clifton Park, N.Y.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT