Dick Fisher wrote:
"The editor should have had the good sense to
>recognize an
>article that lacks any positive evidence for what it
>asserts, and should
>never have run the article in the first place. He is
>expected to exercise
>editorial judgment after all. He embarrassed the
>institution and damaged
>its credibility. "
I have not read Meyer's article, so I dont know if what
you claim here is true or not. I would be interested in
reading it.
From what I can tell, it sounds like Meyer's article went
through the same review process that every other article
published in that journal goes through. On what grounds
do you make your claim that the editor should never have
allowed it to be published?
Received on Tue Feb 1 14:27:53 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 01 2005 - 14:27:54 EST