Have you tried to publish in sociology journals?

From: Metascience (metascience@agner.org)
Date: Sun Jun 24 2001 - 13:58:59 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: The Guardian on Information"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA13935 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:58:53 +0100
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Sender: metascience@agner.org
    X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
    Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:58:59 +0200
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    From: Metascience <metascience@agner.org>
    Subject: Have you tried to publish in sociology journals?
    In-Reply-To: <3AF1EB01.9C8FC6AA@wehi.edu.au>
    References: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    Returning to the thread: "Selection of scientific theories - metascientific
    experiment", I want to thank Vincent Campbell, John Wilkins, and Joedees
    for calling my attention to interesting literature.

    For those who haven't seen the abovementioned thread, my project is to
    study the selection criteria that guide the development of theories in the
    soft sciences, like sociology and psychology, when hard core experiments
    are impossible.

    I have done a lot of literature studies since last time I wrote about this
    subject, and I have found more selection criteria that guide the social
    sciences. The article by Mahoney, that Vincent found, actually describes an
    experiment resembling the one that I suggested. It shows that peer
    reviewers are strongly biased in favor of what they already believe. Other
    selection criteria that I have discovered are of a more ideological or
    philosophical nature, relating to the nature-nurture debate, the 'science
    wars' debate, reductionism versus holism, and the question of whether
    scientists should control nature. These controversies have been strongly
    polarized and created a communication gap between the natural and the
    social sciences.

    In order to further study these conflicts and their influence on the social
    sciences, I want to make a request to all of you:

    Have you ever had your works peer-reviewed by social scientists? If so, I
    would like to see the peer-review reports, whether positive or negative.

    I am interested in both peer-review reports and informal communication in
    connection with work written within the areas of memetics, cultural
    selection, sociobiology, ethology, evolutionary psychology,
    neuroendocrinology, and other paradigms on the fringe of or outside the
    standard sociology tradition, which has been evaluated by sociologists,
    anthropologists, and others in the social and humanist sciences.

    If you, or anybody you know, have submitted such publications for sociology
    journals, books, or as a thesis, then please E-mail me.

    I am sure that many of you have been frustrated by the difficulties of
    communicating memetics theory to sociologists, as well as the difficulties
    of understanding their theories.

    I want to study the selection criteria that has caused the different
    disciplines to drift further and further away from each other and created
    this communication gap between the natural and social sciences. For this
    purpose, I want to study the arguments in the peer review reports. Of
    course there may be hidden motives which are not written explicitly in the
    official peer review reports, but I already have a few such reports that
    reveal emotional reactions.

    Please Email me for details if you think you can help.
    M. Schwartz, Ph.D.

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 24 2001 - 14:02:50 BST