Re: [asa] taking a hiatus

From: David Opderbeck <>
Date: Mon Jan 05 2009 - 14:51:16 EST

I think the problem you guys are highlighting is perhaps both a problem with
PSCF and a "problem" with the way the ASA is constituted.

PSCF, I gather, is understaffed with volunteers and receives fewer
top-quality submissions than is ideal. If you want to remedy this, it seems
to me, one productive path would be to submit your own articles and to
volunteer as a reviewer. Maybe the journal should only be published twice a
year with a blog supplement to increase quality until submissions improve?
Maybe it should be made open access without a fixed publication schedule?
But there was going to be a sort of post-peer review online discussion forum
for published articles which doesn't seem to be materializing.

Still, the ASA is a hybrid TE / ID organization, essentially, I think.
You'll probably have to swallow some tripe with your pudding no matter what
side you come from.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Nucacids <> wrote:

> Hi dennis,
> You are right. I was just stepping back to look at the bigger picture.
> Of course, peer review is not perfect. It is not uncommon for an author to
> receive completely different evaluations of the same article from different
> peer reviewers. I always think of the real peer review happening after
> publication, not before publication. But maybe that's just me.
> Mike
> Hi Mike,
> The issue I have is that Groothius's main points are made by bare
> assertion, without any supporting documentation from the literature (even
> pro-ID literature). He carries on his discussion as if there were no wider
> discussion of his ideas, even though the points he asserts are highly
> contentious.
> The assertion that ID "gives science another tool for empirical
> investigation" is flawed without supporting examples. The best that can be
> said is that ID might provide such means in the future, although then it
> would behoove Groothius to discuss why it has not to date, and rebut why
> critics say it never will. Bare assertion of a main point essential to the
> thesis of an article is sloppy scholarship and should not appear in a
> peer-reviewed journal.
> dennis

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 5 14:51:31 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 05 2009 - 14:51:31 EST