"Anon."  wrote in message
news:...
> Name And Address Supplied wrote:
> > "Malcolm"  wrote
in message news:...
> > 
> >>"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.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The problem is, John is outside the peer group, and not only
is his take on
> >>Hamilton's theory rejected by them, he cannot even get it
heard, because he
> >>is effectively frozen out of the publication process.
> > 
> > 
> > Right, a lot of people are 'frozen out' of the publication process,
> > because they are cranks who produce bad manuscripts. This is exactly
> > what a peer review process is for.
> > 
> 
> Whilst NAS is right, I do not think that all is lost for the amateur. 
> As I see it, a non-specialist will face two issues.  The first is that 
> their ideas might be demostrably stupid (i.e. they are cranks).  The 
> second is that they do not know how to write a scientific paper in a way 
> that is acceptable.  There are conventions that are observed (such as 
> the Introduction - Methods - Results - Discussion structure), which are 
> considered important.  It would be unfortunate if a paper were rejected 
> because it did not conform to this standard.  However, all is not lost. 
>   There are several books about scientific writing, so I would advise 
> that these are consulted.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't believe that the amateur is
intrinsically frozen out of the peer review process. I think that
certain amateurs are cranks, and they are frozen out because the peer
review process is doing exactly what is there to do - filter out the
good from the bad. I agree wholeheartedly with what you have just
said.

> I suspect that a manuscript with a good idea from a non-specialist might 
> be treated with some sympathy if it was clear that the author had tried 
> to get the format right.  Of course, if the ideas are nuts, then no 
> amount of skill in writing will help: 

Exactly. And surely this isn't a failing of the peer review system?

> you just have to make sure you 
> have the right co-authors (e.g. W.D. Hamilton would be a good one to 
> try.  You just have to get his address right).

Well, that could be difficult.
---
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 11/17/04 9:38:23 AM