Guest guest Posted October 2, 2001 Report Share Posted October 2, 2001 hope this is okay, since I personally am making no money off of what I would like to share with everyone.... Greetings everyone. I wanted to let you all know that Eastland Press is publishing a new book called Warm Diseases: A Clinical Guide, but Guohui Liu. While I am not getting any zloty/drachma/cash for announcing this, I am familiar with most of the text, having spent about ALL OF MY ENTIRE THIRD YEAR at school helping with the preliminary editing of the text. Dr. Liu was one of my instructors, with whom I have always been most impressed. When I think about wenbing theory, I think many American schools gloss over the details of this material, often grouping it in the same week or couple of classes with shang han lun material. In many cases, I suspect instructors, stuck with too little time, discuss a few concepts like four level theory as it applies to wind heat, but this is used only to illustrate the theory. If one looks at the theory in detail, one learns that there are actually 5 different pathogens described, with wind heat being only one of them, and that these 5 pathogens can cause 7 different diseases. The text is useful, in my mind, for several reasons. (1) As an explication of an important theory, it has the capacity to expand upon the basic information most practitioners have and purely as theory, it is quite fascinating. (2) It has some very practical implications for clinical work. While I was still working on the book, I used what I had learned to devise a formula for a patient who had been diagnosed with viral pericarditis. (3) I have heard some practitioners say that they " don't believe in pathogens, " based on their training. Wenbing theory is all about pathogens and it is historically an important component of overall Oriental medical theory. (4) The book offers a historical context for the development of this theory in juxtaposition to the development of shang han lun theory. (5) In addition to there being practical clinical implications in general, the book also discusses theoretical applications of the theory to some modern issues, like the development of dry cough from exposure to air conditioning pharmaceuticals like prednisone. Anyway, I'm clearly not objective on this one, but I think it's a good addition to anyone's library, in spite of the fact that there are now, I think, 3 other books out there on wenbing theory. Also, I happen to think that Eastland Press puts out a good product in general. You can check out some of the pages at www.eastlandpress.com/preview/wd.htm. Finally, there's a prepublication discount that expires October 31, making it 20% cheaper. Jeff _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2001 Report Share Posted October 2, 2001 Jeff, Sounds like you have a passion for this book. Would you like to review it for CAOM? Ken , " Jeff Gould " <jeffgould@h...> wrote: > hope this is okay, since I personally am making no money off of what I > would like to share with everyone.... > > Greetings everyone. I wanted to let you all know that Eastland Press is > publishing a new book called Warm Diseases: A Clinical Guide, but Guohui > Liu. > > While I am not getting any zloty/drachma/cash for announcing this, I am > familiar with most of the text, having spent about ALL OF MY ENTIRE THIRD > YEAR at school helping with the preliminary editing of the text. Dr. Liu > was one of my instructors, with whom I have always been most impressed. > > When I think about wenbing theory, I think many American schools gloss over > the details of this material, often grouping it in the same week or couple > of classes with shang han lun material. In many cases, I suspect > instructors, stuck with too little time, discuss a few concepts like four > level theory as it applies to wind heat, but this is used only to illustrate > the theory. > > If one looks at the theory in detail, one learns that there are actually 5 > different pathogens described, with wind heat being only one of them, and > that these 5 pathogens can cause 7 different diseases. > > The text is useful, in my mind, for several reasons. (1) As an explication > of an important theory, it has the capacity to expand upon the basic > information most practitioners have and purely as theory, it is quite > fascinating. (2) It has some very practical implications for clinical work. > While I was still working on the book, I used what I had learned to devise a > formula for a patient who had been diagnosed with viral pericarditis. (3) I > have heard some practitioners say that they " don't believe in pathogens, " > based on their training. Wenbing theory is all about pathogens and it is > historically an important component of overall Oriental medical theory. (4) > The book offers a historical context for the development of this theory in > juxtaposition to the development of shang han lun theory. (5) In addition to > there being practical clinical implications in general, the book also > discusses theoretical applications of the theory to some modern issues, like > the development of dry cough from exposure to air conditioning > pharmaceuticals like prednisone. > > Anyway, I'm clearly not objective on this one, but I think it's a good > addition to anyone's library, in spite of the fact that there are now, I > think, 3 other books out there on wenbing theory. Also, I happen to think > that Eastland Press puts out a good product in general. You can check out > some of the pages at www.eastlandpress.com/preview/wd.htm. > > Finally, there's a prepublication discount that expires October 31, making > it 20% cheaper. > > Jeff > > > _______________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2001 Report Share Posted October 2, 2001 At 11:15 PM +0000 10/2/01, Jeff Gould wrote: >While I was still working on the book, I used what I had learned to devise a >formula for a patient who had been diagnosed with viral pericarditis. -- Jeff, you can't get away without posting this as a case study. Looking forward to it. Rory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2001 Report Share Posted October 2, 2001 At 1:14 AM +0000 10/3/01, yulong wrote: >Would you like to review >it for CAOM? -- Seems like a conflict of interest. No? Rory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 Rory, what on earth do you mean? Ken , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote: > At 1:14 AM +0000 10/3/01, yulong@m... wrote: > >Would you like to review > >it for CAOM? > -- > > Seems like a conflict of interest. No? > > Rory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 I agree with Rory. To ask someone who helped in the creation of a book to write a review of it is like asking the fox to watch the chickens. Shouldn't the reviewer be as objective as possible? This potential reviewer has already said, and quite forthrightly so, that, as one of the people involved in the creation of the book, he is biased in favor for it. To my mind, a credible journal would/should look a little further for a more neutral and less partisan reviewer. Not too long ago I had a somewhat similar discussion with Peter Deadman, editor of the JCM (UK). Peter writes reveiws for his journal of books which he then sells to his rs. I see this also as a serious conflict of interest. This discussion brings up a number of issues for me. Since reviews do affect the sales of books, it seems to me that reviwers need to have certain credentials to do this job responsibly. There are very real-world repercussions for publishers and their authors from reviews. Authors typically devote a year of thier life to write a book, and publishers invest several thousands of dollars in each book they put into print. Reviewers, on the other hand, are all too often unpaid volunteers who lack any real credentials or training to do the job they have been asked to do. In my opinion, reviewers should be well-educated and experienced peers of the author or authors. Accepting reviews from students or recent graduates is, in my experience as both an editor of several journals over the years and a publisher, asking for less than knowledgeable and perspicacious reviews. While every opinion about a book may have some validity, not all opinions are equal. For instance, a student or recent graduate may criticize a book for a some perceived failing that a more educated and experienced reviewer might understand is not a failing at all. While the lesser experienced reviewer may have a valid criticism based on their own, more limited point of view, that criticism may be irrelevant to a more experienced, perspicacious reader. However, other less educated and experienced readers may not understand that the reviewer was criticizing something beyond their level of expertise. Taking that criticism at face value, they may then choose not to buy a book which, perhaps, they should've. As a for instance of this, I once read a review by a reviewer who clearly had far less knowledge and experience than did the author. The reviewer had only been out of school for a couple of years and the author had been practicing for more than 15 years. In addition, the author was well-read in both the Chinese and English language literatures, while the reviewer appeared to be only minimally read in English. Nevertheless, this reviewer criticized the author for their Pinyin medicinal identifications. The examples they gave were the author's use of Shu Di and Sheng Di instead of Shu Di Huang and Sheng Di Huang. (The author did also give the Latin pharmacological idents as well.) Reading this criticism, all I could do was shake my head. Any well read practitioner should know that Shu Di and Sheng Di are perfectly acceptable identifications used by the overwhelming majority of Chinese authors. To me, this quibble made me question the reviewer's credentials to be reviewing this particular material. However, some student or less educated practitioner may have accepted this criticism at face value and then not bought this book which I personally found to be extremely useful in clinical practice. While positive reviews may or may not significantly increase a book's sales, as a publisher I can tell you that a single negative review will significantly decrease a book's sales. People seem to be far more affected by the negative than the positive. For me as an editor, this means that I have a responsiblity to find reviewers who are the well-educated and experienced peers of the author or authors they are reviewing. Granted, in our present situation as a profession, this is not an easy task. Often, true peers are competitors in the marketplace and have their own axes to grind. Perhaps my experiences as an author and publisher have made me hypersensitive to this issue. However, given the repercussions of unprofessional reviews, I feel we have to act as responsibily as possible. Bob , yulong@m... wrote: > Rory, > > what on earth do you mean? > > Ken > > , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote: > > At 1:14 AM +0000 10/3/01, yulong@m... wrote: > > >Would you like to review > > >it for CAOM? > > -- > > > > Seems like a conflict of interest. No? > > > > Rory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 To ask someone who helped in the creation of a book to write a review of it is like asking the fox to watch the chickens >>>This is endemic within all book reviews Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 Bob, > I agree with Rory. I wasn't sure what Rory was saying, which is why I asked him what he meant. To ask someone who helped in the creation of a book > to write a review of it is like asking the fox to watch the chickens. The chickens, in this case, are readers. I think readers can be well served by having people who are enthusiastic about projects expound on their benefits. Hopefully such enthusiasts will also include a sober appraisal of liabilities and weaknesses. However even in cases where such balanced reporting is absent, readers' rights can be protected by complete disclosure of interests so that any underlying conflicts can be assessed by individuals reading the reviews. I agree with Alon that such bias as you describe is the widespread rule, not just in the field of Chinese medicine. > Shouldn't the reviewer be as objective as possible? Again, I think more than objectivity, disclosure is the critical issue. Since Jeff was entirely forthright in his presentation of his involvement I didn't imagine that there would be any issue about letting readers continue to know. And as I said to him, I noticed his passion for the work; I think this passion in and of itself is a beneficial thing that should be nurtured. This potential > reviewer has already said, and quite forthrightly so, that, as one of > the people involved in the creation of the book, he is biased in > favor for it. To my mind, a credible journal would/should look a > little further for a more neutral and less partisan reviewer. Since this seems like a direct challenge to the credibility of the journal I edit, I will respond. My invitation to Rory was not an acceptance for publication. We have a peer-review mechanism which though still very much in its formative phase at CAOM, results in everything that appears having been through a peer-review process so that it meets the criteria that we are developing. Not to side-step the point about " objectivity " , I would not find one's participation in the creation of a book to be a disqualification for writing about that book. As an author I would not want to be disqualified from telling people about my books. If you wanted to promote one of your books in the pages of CAOM you would be welcome to. We would simply clearly identify you as the author/editor/publisher so that readers could assess your claims against the implicit issues related to your authorship of the book under discussion. I suppose that ideally all reviews might be written by individuals with absolutely no connection to the author and publisher. But I think we're just too far from this ideal to disqualify those with such connections from authoring and publishing reviews. Again, for me the critical issue in all of this is disclosure. Frankly, I think that the people who put books together can be very valuable sources of information about those books. Therefore I want to make the pages of the journal available to such people to communicate whatever they wish about their books. After all, if you don't care enough about it to promote it, why bother writing it in the first place? > > Not too long ago I had a somewhat similar discussion with Peter > Deadman, editor of the JCM (UK). Peter writes reveiws for his journal > of books which he then sells to his rs. I see this also as a > serious conflict of interest. I don't see the conflict. I see it as an expression of self-interest, which is both prevalent, as Alon points out, and only natural. As long as readers know who is saying what and can therefore evaluate data accordingly, I just don't see where the notion of conflict comes in. If I'm just missing it, please point it out. > > This discussion brings up a number of issues for me. Since reviews do > affect the sales of books, it seems to me that reviwers need to have > certain credentials to do this job responsibly. There are very > real-world repercussions for publishers and their authors from > reviews. Authors typically devote a year of thier life to > write a book, and publishers invest several thousands of dollars in > each book they put into print. Reviewers, on the other hand, > are all too often unpaid volunteers who lack any real > credentials or training to do the job they have been asked to > do. Well, you won't find a more sympathetic ear for complaints about the plight of the poor writer. All the more reason, I reckon, to admit those with interests including vested interestes in books to present them in their best light. Such a presentation being no guarantee against criticism. In fact, by implication what you are suggesting is that someone with a vested interest could be expected to make statements that are untrue in order to make a book seem to be more than it is in fact. But this kind of approach is risky as it leaves the perpetrator on indefensible ground in case that false statements are later exposed. > > In my opinion, reviewers should be well-educated and experienced peers > of the author or authors. Accepting reviews from students or recent > graduates is, in my experience as both an editor of several journals > over the years and a publisher, asking for less than knowledgeable and > perspicacious reviews. While every opinion about a book may have some > validity, not all opinions are equal. For instance, a student or > recent graduate may criticize a book for a some perceived failing that > a more educated and experienced reviewer might understand is not a > failing at all. While the lesser experienced reviewer may have a valid > criticism based on their own, more limited point of view, that > criticism may be irrelevant to a more experienced, perspicacious > reader. However, other less educated and experienced readers may not > understand that the reviewer was criticizing something beyond their > level of expertise. Taking that criticism at face value, they may then > choose not to buy a book which, perhaps, they should've. Good point. And I see your point with respect to negative reviews far more clearly than any danger resulting from reviews that are written to highlight a book's plusses. I think that when dealing with a review that seeks to criticize the book in question a somewhat higher level of scrutiny is required and a higher standard of excellence needs to be exhibited by the writer of the review. This is one of the reasons why I so strongly favor a confrontational approach: it demands that we up the bar. From what Jeff posted, I anticipate that a review of Eastland's new book would be rather thorough as well as highly complimentary. I haven't seen the book yet so have no basis for forming a judgment, but this of course would be part of the editorial process employed to accept or reject a review from Jeff of this particular book. > > As a for instance of this, I once read a review by a reviewer who > clearly had far less knowledge and experience than did the author. The > reviewer had only been out of school for a couple of years and the > author had been practicing for more than 15 years. In addition, the > author was well-read in both the Chinese and English language > literatures, while the reviewer appeared to be only minimally read in > English. Nevertheless, this reviewer criticized the author for their > Pinyin medicinal identifications. The examples they gave were the > author's use of Shu Di and Sheng Di instead of Shu Di Huang and Sheng > Di Huang. (The author did also give the Latin pharmacological idents > as well.) Reading this criticism, all I could do was shake my head. > Any well read practitioner should know that Shu Di and Sheng Di are > perfectly acceptable identifications used by the overwhelming majority > of Chinese authors. To me, this quibble made me question the > reviewer's credentials to be reviewing this particular material. > However, some student or less educated practitioner may have accepted > this criticism at face value and then not bought this book which I > personally found to be extremely useful in clinical practice. > While positive reviews may or may not significantly increase a book's > sales, as a publisher I can tell you that a single negative review > will significantly decrease a book's sales. People seem to be far > more affected by the negative than the positive. For me as an editor, > this means that I have a responsiblity to find reviewers who are the > well-educated and experienced peers of the author or authors they are > reviewing. Granted, in our present situation as a profession, this is > not an easy task. Often, true peers are competitors in the marketplace > and have their own axes to grind. Perhaps my experiences as an author > and publisher have made me hypersensitive to this issue. However, > given the repercussions of unprofessional reviews, I feel we have to > act as responsibily as possible. Couldn't agree with you more on this point. And if you continue to see my approach as irresponsible, I'd appreciate your help in coming to understand it better. As you are one of the most prolific writers and editors in the field, your views are very valuable. Best, Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 As editor of the book, is he not too close to be the reviewer? I recently edited a book and declined to review when asked for this reason - perhaps I was being overly cautious. Rory > Rory, > > what on earth do you mean? > > Ken > > , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote: > > At 1:14 AM +0000 10/3/01, yulong@m... wrote: > > >Would you like to review > > >it for CAOM? > > -- > > > > Seems like a conflict of interest. No? > > > > Rory > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare > practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in > Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including > board approved online continuing education. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 Again, I think more than objectivity, disclosureis the critical issue. Since Jeff was entirelyforthright in his presentation of his involvementI didn't imagine that there would be any issueabout letting readers continue to know. >>>>I agree. When you read reviews in places such as the Townsend letter you never see the information on conflict. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 As editor of the book, is he not too close to be the reviewer? >>>It did not look like a review to me, more like a plug. And being a plug he disclosed all that needs to be known. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 I also worked in clinic with Guohui Liu (the wenbing author) and was impressed with his knowledge and application of both wenbing and SHL formulae. He is a chengdu graduate and was a classmate of Ma shou chun, Dan Bensky's colleague in seattle, also a noted SHL scholar. I am sure his book is illuminating. I hope the book includes a terminology glossary so we can easily trace the more obscure technical terms to their chinese sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Ken, My reply was not a direct challenge to the journal you edit. I have never read it. It was a response to what seemed to be your willingness as an editor to engage a reviewer with, from my editorial point of view, questionable credentials, and I continue to stand by that opinion. Bob , yulong@m... wrote: > Bob, > > > I agree with Rory. > > I wasn't sure what Rory was saying, which > is why I asked him what he meant. > > To ask someone who helped in the creation of a book > > to write a review of it is like asking the fox to watch the > chickens. > > The chickens, in this case, are readers. I think > readers can be well served by having people who > are enthusiastic about projects expound on their > benefits. Hopefully such enthusiasts will also > include a sober appraisal of liabilities and > weaknesses. However even in cases where such > balanced reporting is absent, readers' rights > can be protected by complete disclosure of interests > so that any underlying conflicts can be assessed > by individuals reading the reviews. > > I agree with Alon that such bias as you describe > is the widespread rule, not just in the field > of Chinese medicine. > > > Shouldn't the reviewer be as objective as possible? > > Again, I think more than objectivity, disclosure > is the critical issue. Since Jeff was entirely > forthright in his presentation of his involvement > I didn't imagine that there would be any issue > about letting readers continue to know. And > as I said to him, I noticed his passion for > the work; I think this passion in and of itself > is a beneficial thing that should be nurtured. > > This potential > > reviewer has already said, and quite forthrightly so, that, as one > of > > the people involved in the creation of the book, he is biased in > > favor for it. To my mind, a credible journal would/should look a > > little further for a more neutral and less partisan reviewer. > > Since this seems like a direct challenge to the > credibility of the journal I edit, I will respond. > My invitation to Rory was not an acceptance for > publication. We have a peer-review mechanism > which though still very much in its formative phase > at CAOM, results in everything that appears having been > through a peer-review process so that it meets the > criteria that we are developing. > > Not to side-step the point about " objectivity " , > I would not find one's participation in > the creation of a book to be a disqualification > for writing about that book. As an author I > would not want to be disqualified from telling > people about my books. If you wanted to promote > one of your books in the pages of CAOM you > would be welcome to. We would simply clearly > identify you as the author/editor/publisher > so that readers could assess your claims against > the implicit issues related to your authorship > of the book under discussion. > > I suppose that ideally all reviews might > be written by individuals with absolutely > no connection to the author and publisher. > But I think we're just too far from this > ideal to disqualify those with such connections > from authoring and publishing reviews. > Again, for me the critical issue in all > of this is disclosure. > > Frankly, I think that the people who put books > together can be very valuable sources of information > about those books. Therefore I want to make > the pages of the journal available to such > people to communicate whatever they wish about > their books. After all, if you don't care > enough about it to promote it, why bother > writing it in the first place? > > > > > > Not too long ago I had a somewhat similar discussion with Peter > > Deadman, editor of the JCM (UK). Peter writes reveiws for his > journal > > of books which he then sells to his rs. I see this also as > a > > serious conflict of interest. > > I don't see the conflict. I see it as an expression > of self-interest, which is both prevalent, as Alon > points out, and only natural. As long as readers > know who is saying what and can therefore evaluate > data accordingly, I just don't see where the > notion of conflict comes in. If I'm just missing it, > please point it out. > > > > This discussion brings up a number of issues for me. Since reviews > do > > affect the sales of books, it seems to me that reviwers need to > have > > certain credentials to do this job responsibly. There are very > > real-world repercussions for publishers and their authors from > > reviews. Authors typically devote a year of thier life to > > write a book, and publishers invest several thousands of dollars in > > each book they put into print. Reviewers, on the other hand, > > are all too often unpaid volunteers who lack any real > > credentials or training to do the job they have been asked to > > do. > > Well, you won't find a more sympathetic > ear for complaints about the plight of > the poor writer. All the more reason, > I reckon, to admit those with interests > including vested interestes in books to > present them in their best light. Such > a presentation being no guarantee against > criticism. In fact, by implication what > you are suggesting is that someone with > a vested interest could be expected to > make statements that are untrue in order > to make a book seem to be more than it > is in fact. > > But this kind of approach is risky as > it leaves the perpetrator on indefensible > ground in case that false statements are > later exposed. > > > > In my opinion, reviewers should be well-educated and experienced > peers > > of the author or authors. Accepting reviews from students or recent > > graduates is, in my experience as both an editor of several > journals > > over the years and a publisher, asking for less than knowledgeable > and > > perspicacious reviews. While every opinion about a book may have > some > > validity, not all opinions are equal. For instance, a student or > > recent graduate may criticize a book for a some perceived failing > that > > a more educated and experienced reviewer might understand is not a > > failing at all. While the lesser experienced reviewer may have a > valid > > criticism based on their own, more limited point of view, that > > criticism may be irrelevant to a more experienced, perspicacious > > reader. However, other less educated and experienced readers may > not > > understand that the reviewer was criticizing something beyond their > > level of expertise. Taking that criticism at face value, they may > then > > choose not to buy a book which, perhaps, they should've. > > Good point. And I see your point with > respect to negative reviews far more > clearly than any danger resulting from > reviews that are written to highlight > a book's plusses. > > I think that when dealing with a review > that seeks to criticize the book in > question a somewhat higher level of > scrutiny is required and a higher standard of > excellence needs to be exhibited by the > writer of the review. This is one of > the reasons why I so strongly favor > a confrontational approach: it demands > that we up the bar. > > From what Jeff posted, I anticipate > that a review of Eastland's new book > would be rather thorough as well as > highly complimentary. I haven't seen > the book yet so have no basis for > forming a judgment, but this of course > would be part of the editorial process > employed to accept or reject a review > from Jeff of this particular book. > > > > > > As a for instance of this, I once read a review by a reviewer who > > clearly had far less knowledge and experience than did the author. > The > > reviewer had only been out of school for a couple of years and the > > author had been practicing for more than 15 years. In addition, the > > author was well-read in both the Chinese and English language > > literatures, while the reviewer appeared to be only minimally read > in > > English. Nevertheless, this reviewer criticized the author for > their > > Pinyin medicinal identifications. The examples they gave were the > > author's use of Shu Di and Sheng Di instead of Shu Di Huang and > Sheng > > Di Huang. (The author did also give the Latin pharmacological > idents > > as well.) Reading this criticism, all I could do was shake my head. > > Any well read practitioner should know that Shu Di and Sheng Di are > > perfectly acceptable identifications used by the overwhelming > majority > > of Chinese authors. To me, this quibble made me question the > > reviewer's credentials to be reviewing this particular material. > > However, some student or less educated practitioner may have > accepted > > this criticism at face value and then not bought this book which I > > personally found to be extremely useful in clinical practice. > > > While positive reviews may or may not significantly increase a > book's > > sales, as a publisher I can tell you that a single negative review > > will significantly decrease a book's sales. People seem to be far > > more affected by the negative than the positive. For me as an > editor, > > this means that I have a responsiblity to find reviewers who are > the > > well-educated and experienced peers of the author or authors they > are > > reviewing. Granted, in our present situation as a profession, this > is > > not an easy task. Often, true peers are competitors in the > marketplace > > and have their own axes to grind. Perhaps my experiences as an > author > > and publisher have made me hypersensitive to this issue. However, > > given the repercussions of unprofessional reviews, I feel we have > to > > act as responsibily as possible. > > Couldn't agree with you more on this point. > And if you continue to see my approach as > irresponsible, I'd appreciate your help > in coming to understand it better. > > As you are one of the most prolific writers > and editors in the field, your views are > very valuable. > > Best, > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Alon, As a contributing editor to the Townsend Letter, I can tell you it is their editorial position not to publish critical pieces (except of standard Western medicine). When I tried to rebutt an article by another TLDP contributor, I was told I should discuss my critcisms with him personally but that TLDP was not interested in publishing my response. I can also tell you as a publisher that the book reviews in TLDP are often nothing more than infomercials. By citing TLDP, I think you are actually supporting my position. TLDP is hardly a professionally credible medical journal. They are a money-making business and caveat emptor. So then, perhaps, the question is, " Why are you a contributing editor for TLDP? " And when I read TLDP, I sometimes ask myself that question. However, my main reason for contributing to TLDP is in order to publish what I believe is a higher caliber of information, along with the likes of other scholarly and credible TLDP authors such as Bob Anderson. Frankly, I hope my articles counterbalance the infomercial drek that another TLDP editor contributes on Chinese medicine. If TLDP will not let me criticize this other contributor's stuff, then at least I can publish materials of a different quality and caliber (since the information I publish in TLDP is mostly taken directly from Chinese medical journals). Hopefully, readers will decide for themselves which information they prefer on Chinese medicine. Bob , <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > Again, I think more than objectivity, disclosure > is the critical issue. Since Jeff was entirely > forthright in his presentation of his involvement > I didn't imagine that there would be any issue > about letting readers continue to know. > >>>>I agree. When you read reviews in places such as the Townsend letter you never see the information on conflict. > Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Alon, I was not criticizing what the original respondent was saying in his discussion on this list. I think he did a nice job of plugging the book while honestly disclosing his bias. What I was criticizing is Ken's solicitation of a review for a scholarly journal by this same person. These are two entirely different matters, at least to me. Bob , <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > As editor of the book, is he not too close to be the > reviewer? > >>>It did not look like a review to me, more like a plug. And being a plug he disclosed all that needs to be known. > Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 What I was criticizing is Ken's solicitation of a review for a scholarly journal by this same person. These are two entirely different matters, at least to me >>>I agree, although both of us know that is done all the time Alon - pemachophel2001 Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:39 AM Re: New Book/Wen bing Alon,I was not criticizing what the original respondent was saying in his discussion on this list. I think he did a nice job of plugging the book while honestly disclosing his bias. What I was criticizing is Ken's solicitation of a review for a scholarly journal by this same person. These are two entirely different matters, at least to me.Bob, <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:> As editor of the book, is he not too close to be the > reviewer? > >>>It did not look like a review to me, more like a plug. And being a plug he disclosed all that needs to be known.> AlonChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 TLDP are often nothing more than infomercials >>>I thing the whole thing is nothing more than infomercials Alon - pemachophel2001 Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:37 AM Re: New Book/Wen bing Alon, As a contributing editor to the Townsend Letter, I can tell you it is their editorial position not to publish critical pieces (except of standard Western medicine). When I tried to rebutt an article by another TLDP contributor, I was told I should discuss my critcisms with him personally but that TLDP was not interested in publishing my response. I can also tell you as a publisher that the book reviews in TLDP are often nothing more than infomercials. By citing TLDP, I think you are actually supporting my position. TLDP is hardly a professionally credible medical journal. They are a money-making business and caveat emptor.So then, perhaps, the question is, "Why are you a contributing editor for TLDP?" And when I read TLDP, I sometimes ask myself that question. However, my main reason for contributing to TLDP is in order to publish what I believe is a higher caliber of information, along with the likes of other scholarly and credible TLDP authors such as Bob Anderson. Frankly, I hope my articles counterbalance the infomercial drek that another TLDP editor contributes on Chinese medicine. If TLDP will not let me criticize this other contributor's stuff, then at least I can publish materials of a different quality and caliber (since the information I publish in TLDP is mostly taken directly from Chinese medical journals). Hopefully, readers will decide for themselves which information they prefer on Chinese medicine.Bob , <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:> Again, I think more than objectivity, disclosure> is the critical issue. Since Jeff was entirely> forthright in his presentation of his involvement> I didn't imagine that there would be any issue> about letting readers continue to know. > >>>>I agree. When you read reviews in places such as the Townsend letter you never see the information on conflict.> AlonChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 At 6:14 PM +0000 10/3/01, yulong wrote: >My invitation to Rory was not an acceptance for >publication. -- I believe you mean Jeff, not me. >We have a peer-review mechanism >which though still very much in its formative phase >at CAOM, results in everything that appears having been >through a peer-review process so that it meets the >criteria that we are developing. -- Yes, and my question about conflict of interest was not meant to question the credibility of the journal, which I believe should be complimented for trying to adopt a serious peer review process. > >Not to side-step the point about " objectivity " , >I would not find one's participation in >the creation of a book to be a disqualification >for writing about that book. As an author I >would not want to be disqualified from telling >people about my books. If you wanted to promote >one of your books in the pages of CAOM you >would be welcome to. We would simply clearly >identify you as the author/editor/publisher >so that readers could assess your claims against >the implicit issues related to your authorship >of the book under discussion. -- What I was responding to was your suggestion that he review it... At 1:14 AM +0000 10/3/01, yulong wrote: >Would you like to review >it for CAOM? -- I make a distinction between " writing about " it, and reviewing it; or writing about it in a way that appears to be a review; or having the writing about it appear in the book review section. I would be shocked if CAOM published a review of a book by the book's editor, even if the reviewer's interest was declared. > >Frankly, I think that the people who put books >together can be very valuable sources of information >about those books. Therefore I want to make >the pages of the journal available to such >people to communicate whatever they wish about >their books. After all, if you don't care >enough about it to promote it, why bother >writing it in the first place? -- Fair enough, but what I want in a review, particularly of a contribution to the English language literature on a subject as historically and medically important as Wen Bing, is a review by someone who can properly evaluate the historical and medical issues presented in the text. I want to be able to rely on CAOM to publish such a review; and if it does, I want to know that the author of the review does not have a vested interest in the book's publication. Rory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Rory, > -- > Fair enough, but what I want in a review, particularly of a > contribution to the English language literature on a subject as > historically and medically important as Wen Bing, is a review by > someone who can properly evaluate the historical and medical issues > presented in the text. I want to be able to rely on CAOM to publish > such a review; and if it does, I want to know that the author of the > review does not have a vested interest in the book's publication. Point well taken. I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive. One of the realities that become quite apparent in the course of editing a journal is the relative scarcity of the kind of work that you describe. Whenever you would like to contribute such, we are ready to receive. Thanks for clarifying your earlier remark, as I do understand the whole issue better now. Best, Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2001 Report Share Posted October 5, 2001 In thinking about this whole issue of reviews last night, I agree that disclosure is extremely important and goes a long way towards explaining and mitigating biases in reviews. On the other hand, I look to reviews in professional journals specifically to prescreen books for me. Basically, I want to know whether or not I should spend my money to buy a particular book and then, even more importantly, spend my time to read it. Therefore, I would like to know as much about the perceived plusses and minuses of the book as possible. A thoughtful, balanced, yet nonetheless critical review by a well-educated and experienced, objective reviewer can be very helpful in making a purchasing decision, which, I believe, is the whole reason for reviews in such professional journals (as opposed to reviews in commercial journals). While I agree that objectivity is an ideal which is almost impossible to achieve, still, like so many other hard-to-achieve and scarecely existing ideals -- such as truth, beauty, compassion, courage, tolerance, and democracy -- it is an ideal which, I believe, we should still strive for as editors. In addition, it is also an ideal which, I think, readers of professional journals should expect and request. Bob , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote: > At 6:14 PM +0000 10/3/01, yulong@m... wrote: > >My invitation to Rory was not an acceptance for > >publication. > -- > I believe you mean Jeff, not me. > > >We have a peer-review mechanism > >which though still very much in its formative phase > >at CAOM, results in everything that appears having been > >through a peer-review process so that it meets the > >criteria that we are developing. > -- > Yes, and my question about conflict of interest was not meant to > question the credibility of the journal, which I believe should be > complimented for trying to adopt a serious peer review process. > > > > >Not to side-step the point about " objectivity " , > >I would not find one's participation in > >the creation of a book to be a disqualification > >for writing about that book. As an author I > >would not want to be disqualified from telling > >people about my books. If you wanted to promote > >one of your books in the pages of CAOM you > >would be welcome to. We would simply clearly > >identify you as the author/editor/publisher > >so that readers could assess your claims against > >the implicit issues related to your authorship > >of the book under discussion. > -- > What I was responding to was your suggestion that he review it... > > At 1:14 AM +0000 10/3/01, yulong@m... wrote: > >Would you like to review > >it for CAOM? > -- > I make a distinction between " writing about " it, and reviewing it; or > writing about it in a way that appears to be a review; or having the > writing about it appear in the book review section. I would be > shocked if CAOM published a review of a book by the book's editor, > even if the reviewer's interest was declared. > > > > >Frankly, I think that the people who put books > >together can be very valuable sources of information > >about those books. Therefore I want to make > >the pages of the journal available to such > >people to communicate whatever they wish about > >their books. After all, if you don't care > >enough about it to promote it, why bother > >writing it in the first place? > -- > Fair enough, but what I want in a review, particularly of a > contribution to the English language literature on a subject as > historically and medically important as Wen Bing, is a review by > someone who can properly evaluate the historical and medical issues > presented in the text. I want to be able to rely on CAOM to publish > such a review; and if it does, I want to know that the author of the > review does not have a vested interest in the book's publication. > > Rory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2001 Report Share Posted October 5, 2001 specifically to prescreen books for me. Basically, I want to know whether or not I should spend my money to buy a particular book and then, even more importantly, spend my time to read it. >>>I totally agree Alon - pemachophel2001 Friday, October 05, 2001 8:07 AM Re: New Book/Wen bing In thinking about this whole issue of reviews last night, I agree that disclosure is extremely important and goes a long way towards explaining and mitigating biases in reviews. On the other hand, I look to reviews in professional journals specifically to prescreen books for me. Basically, I want to know whether or not I should spend my money to buy a particular book and then, even more importantly, spend my time to read it. Therefore, I would like to know as much about the perceived plusses and minuses of the book as possible. A thoughtful, balanced, yet nonetheless critical review by a well-educated and experienced, objective reviewer can be very helpful in making a purchasing decision, which, I believe, is the whole reason for reviews in such professional journals (as opposed to reviews in commercial journals). While I agree that objectivity is an ideal which is almost impossible to achieve, still, like so many other hard-to-achieve and scarecely existing ideals -- such as truth, beauty, compassion, courage, tolerance, and democracy -- it is an ideal which, I believe, we should still strive for as editors. In addition, it is also an ideal which, I think, readers of professional journals should expect and request.Bob, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote:> At 6:14 PM +0000 10/3/01, yulong@m... wrote:> >My invitation to Rory was not an acceptance for> >publication.> --> I believe you mean Jeff, not me.> > >We have a peer-review mechanism> >which though still very much in its formative phase> >at CAOM, results in everything that appears having been> >through a peer-review process so that it meets the> >criteria that we are developing.> --> Yes, and my question about conflict of interest was not meant to > question the credibility of the journal, which I believe should be > complimented for trying to adopt a serious peer review process.> > >> >Not to side-step the point about "objectivity",> >I would not find one's participation in> >the creation of a book to be a disqualification> >for writing about that book. As an author I> >would not want to be disqualified from telling> >people about my books. If you wanted to promote> >one of your books in the pages of CAOM you> >would be welcome to. We would simply clearly> >identify you as the author/editor/publisher> >so that readers could assess your claims against> >the implicit issues related to your authorship> >of the book under discussion.> --> What I was responding to was your suggestion that he review it...> > At 1:14 AM +0000 10/3/01, yulong@m... wrote:> >Would you like to review> >it for CAOM?> --> I make a distinction between "writing about" it, and reviewing it; or > writing about it in a way that appears to be a review; or having the > writing about it appear in the book review section. I would be > shocked if CAOM published a review of a book by the book's editor, > even if the reviewer's interest was declared.> > >> >Frankly, I think that the people who put books> >together can be very valuable sources of information> >about those books. Therefore I want to make> >the pages of the journal available to such> >people to communicate whatever they wish about> >their books. After all, if you don't care> >enough about it to promote it, why bother> >writing it in the first place?> --> Fair enough, but what I want in a review, particularly of a > contribution to the English language literature on a subject as > historically and medically important as Wen Bing, is a review by > someone who can properly evaluate the historical and medical issues > presented in the text. I want to be able to rely on CAOM to publish > such a review; and if it does, I want to know that the author of the > review does not have a vested interest in the book's publication.> > RoryChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.