NIPS & double blind reviewing

[Shlomo Geva]

At 11:30  17/12/02 -0800, John Lazzaro wrote:

> > Neil Lawrence <neil at dcs.shef.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> > If there is a strong counter argument to the implementation of these
> > procedures I would like to hear it.
>
>Well, I get asked to do implementation reviews for NIPS from time to
>time. Let's say I get a double-blind paper for organic transistor
>implementations of neural networks. And I look at the data and the
>text, and it seems high quality, so I give it a high score.
>
>The paper gets in, the double-blind is removed, and I find out Jan
>Hendrik Schon wrote the paper:
>
>http://www.nature.com/nsu/020923/020923-9.html
>
>Do I need to say more?


Sure.
    * Did the above-mentioned physicist get through a double-blind review 
loophole - I think not!
    * There is the case of William McBride who discovered the link between 
Thalidomide and its genetic effects : 
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s248519.htm.        Again, 
ordinary review processes did not uncover the problem.  Did eminence and 
fame let a publication in through the eminence and fame review 
loophole?  Did eminence and fame make it more tempting to engage in less 
than perfect research practices?
Regards,

Shlomo



Shlomo Geva, PhD
Centre for Information Technology Innovation
QUT, Australia