Criteria for publication

[bnhpct]

What are our standards for peer review and publication? In his dismissal of several chapters in the Handbook (LCS IV) Rick proposes that only computer simulations are worthy of serious consideration, and reports based upon them.

@rsmarken

The only way to demonstrate (to me, anyway) that collective control is a useful theoretical addition to PCT is to show how collective control models can account for the real world behavior of groups of living control systems.

@rsmarken

BN: ‘Armchair speculation’ and anecdotal observations have a legitimate place in the advancement of any science and should not be discouraged or stifled.

RM: Their legitimate place is in net discussions, working papers or even peer reviewed articles (if the peers rate them as acceptable), not in a Handbook that purports to contain authoritative papers on PCT.

[rsmarken]

Hi Bruce,

BN: What are our standards for peer review and publication? In his dismissal of several chapters in the Handbook (LCS IV) Rick proposes that only computer simulations are worthy of serious consideration, and reports based upon them.

RM: No, I am not proposing that. I was proposing that new ideas – ones like atenfels that are proposed additions to the PCT model – should be justified with something more than verbal anecdotes. But the Handbook was peer reviewed so I guess I have to accept that the papers in there were properly selected. I guess the real problem is that none of the people that I consider to be my peers (in their understanding of PCT) science were in on the reviewing. That doesn’t mean I consider myself to be peerless; I’m sure those who did review those papers in the Handbook are superior to me in all other attributes;-)

Best, Rick