HISTNEUR-L: The History of Neuroscience Internet Forum

[Previous Posting] [Next Posting]

policy 

given the interesting proposal sent around by whit yesterday the discussion
is still going on and raising new view points.

it may be true, that most people submitting abstracts do have some
experience in formulating astracts and papers. however, most often this is
indeed in other areas, where we have the traditional formula of an intro, an
hypothesis, some methods and results. looking at abstracts for the ishn
conf. this framework is not automatically transferred to this 'new area' of
our investigations. i assume that not everyone thinks about his (or her)
historical work along the same lines as the data-driven empirical work.

and yet, there is good reason to attempt to stimulate people to look for a
more scientific approach, and not be satisfied with a desciption of a
person, an instrument, a hospital or whatever. careful procedures for
reviewing abstract proposals may be very helpful for authors to focus the
contribution of a particular paper on  a specific question. once the central
question becomes clear, it will be much easier to determine which 'data' are
relevant, and what sort of conclusions should be formulated.

i think that it is very important for the survival of the society and the
journal, that we should strive towards good papers and articles, 'good' in
the sense that a paper attempts to formulate an answer to a particular
isssue. instead of looking at review procedures as methods to establish an
elite, we all should be happy with a procedure where you get some feedback
on your work and some suggestions of enthousiastic colleagues (after all, we
don't fight for a pot of money).

paul eling
<HISTNEUR-L@library.ucla.edu>