"EKurtz"  wrote in message
news:...
> "John Edser"  wrote in message 
> news:...
> >
> >> If the Peer review process had worked
> >> correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
> >> evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
> >> with many other misused oversimplified models.
> 
> "Name And Address Supplied" wrote
> > I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> > based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> > it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> > peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> > something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
> 
> Actually, Hamilton's paper was rejected by the editor's of Nature:
> 
> QUOTE
> [William Hamilton's] first, and now, landmark paper was rejected by
> Nature. Hamilton recalls, "I received the editor's decision almost by
> return of post. In about three lines he regretted that he had no space
> for my manuscript and suggested that, it might be more appropriate to
> a `psychological or sociological' journal". Throughout his career
> Hamilton had trouble publishing his papers in peer-reviewed journals,
> underscoring the shortcomings of the peer-review system.
> END QUOTE
> http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Apr2001/Apr2001p4-5.html
> 
> Obviously, problems with the peer-review system are separate from the 
> problem of editorial rejection.

You have to bear in mind that the manuscript that he sent to Nature
was enormous - it later appeared as two consecutive and substantial
papers in JTB. Nature really wasn't the appropriate place for this
paper.

There are two main reasons why Hamilton struggled with the peer review
process. One is that he seems to have been obsessed with getting
published in Nature, and the manuscripts he submitted there were
really not suitable for Nature. Secondly, while he clearly had a very
good intuitive understanding of the important concepts, he wasn't the
best at communicating these. This follows largely from the first
reason - by focussing on certain top journals that demand short
papers, his papers are necessarily terse to the point of obscurity.
For example, in his 1967 paper in Science, his conceptual breakthrough
regarding the equivalence of kin selection and group selection is
consigned to one of around 50 footnotes!

> 
> > Well, I have in the past invested some of my time into examining your
> > reasons for this crucial assumption, and was not persuaded in the
> > slightest. What I saw was gross mischaracterisation and ignorance of
> > current social evolutionary thought.
> >
> > But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
> > in this field, are wrong. I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
> > against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
> > Reviewers have to give reasons for rejecting a paper, and these are
> > made available to the author. A while back I suggested that you
> > prepare a manuscript and submit to Journal of Theoretical Biology,
> 
> I would expect the editors to reject a submission from a contributor whose 
> mathematical abilities are those of a C-grade high-school student, and who 
> manages to misconstrue the most elementary principles of evolutionary 
> biology.
 
Right - and that's what we want, surely?
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/15/04 4:55:43 PM