Censorship

[Geoff Read]

> In my case I do acknowledge that I have had rejections
> that have involved from a fair hearing as the reviewers identified specific
> problems rather than just being opposed to panbiogeography.

Phew!  A momentous concession. Well done John. :-)

> the problem with censorship arises when the "normal" criteria of
> evaluation tend to be left out as reviewers reject on a philosophical
> basis

Do they? That's the crunch. Each time I've tried to suggest that your
reviewers may legitimately think  methods you use are the equivalent of
Thomas Lammers' 2+2 = 5 you come back with the "suppression of
alternative approaches" argument.   On the other hand, if you are
correct, then I think those reviewers should have instead politely declined
to referee the MS.

Your comments hinting at the congealing of the field of biogeography into
factionalism (ugh!) suggest a possible partial solution to your difficulties -
your group should have your own journal.


--
Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.cri.nz>
       http://www.annelida.net/