[ABE-L] mais interessante ainda

[Hedibert Lopes]

Alem do artigo que o Carlinhos acabou de dividir com a lista

Wasserman (2012) A world without referees. ISBA Bulletin 19(1): 7-8
(https://bayesian.org/sites/default/files/fm/bulletins/1203.pdf),

gostaria de adicionar o "informal reply" de 4 pesos pesados da estatistica:

Chopin, Gelman, Mengersen and Robert (2012) In praise of the referee.
(http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4304).

De acordo com o Christian Robert (
https://xianblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/in-praise-of-the-referee-or-not/):

\begin{quote}
While I was editing our “famous” In praise of the referee paper—well,
famous for being my most rejected paper ever!, with one editor not even
acknowledging receipt!!—for the next edition of the ISBA Bulletin—where it
truly belongs, being in fine a reply to Larry’s tribune therein a while
ago—, Dimitris Politis had written a column for the IMS Bulletin—March 2013
Issue, page 11—on Refereeing and psychoanalysis.
\end{quote}

Aqui esta' o artigo do Dimitris:
http://bulletin.imstat.org/wp-content/uploads/Bulletin42_2.pdf

E aqui esta' o resto do comentario do Christian:

\begin{quote}
Uh?! What?! Psychoanalysis?! Dimitris’ post is about referees being rude or
abusive in their report, expressing befuddlement at seeing such behaviour
in a scientific review. If one sets aside cases of personal and ideological
antagonisms—always likely to occur in academic circles!—, a “good” reason
for referees to get aggressively annoyed to the point of rudeness is
sloppiness of one kind or another in the paper under review. One has to
remember that refereeing is done for free and with no clear recognition in
the overwhelming majority of cases, out of a sense of duty to the community
and of fairness for having our own papers refereed. Reading a paper where
typos abound, where style is so abstruse as to hide the purpose of the
work, where the literature is so poorly referenced as to make one doubts
the author(s) ever read another paper, the referee may feel vindicated by
venting his/her frustration at wasting one’s time by writing a few
vitriolic remarks.  Dimitris points out this can be very detrimental to
young researchers. True, but what happened to the advisor at this stage?!
Wasn’t she/he supposed to advise her/his PhD student not only in conducting
innovative research but also in producing intelligible outcome and in
preparing papers suited for the journal it is to be submitted to..?! Being
rude and aggressive does not contribute to improve the setting, no more
than headbutting an Italian football player helps in winning the World Cup,
but it may nonetheless be understood without resorting to psychoanalysis!

Most interestingly, this negative aspect of refereeing—that can be curbed
by posterior actions of AEs and editors—would vanish if some of our
proposals were implemented, incl. making referee’ reports part of the
referee’s publication list, making those reports public as comments on the
published paper (if published), and creating repositories or report commons
independent from journals…
\end{quote}

Abracos a todos,
Hedibert


On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:01 PM, <cpereira em ime.usp.br> wrote:

>
> Recebi de um amigo este paper do Larry Wasserman
> Divirtam-se
> C
>
> _______________________________________________
> abe mailing list
> abe em lists.ime.usp.br
> https://lists.ime.usp.br/mailman/listinfo/abe
>
>
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <https://lists.ime.usp.br/archives/abe/attachments/20150827/eab8074a/attachment.html>