Title:
Discussion of Publications—Any Problems?
Author(s):
Adam Neville
Publication:
Concrete International
Volume:
25
Issue:
9
Appears on pages(s):
60-64
Keywords:
DOI:
Date:
9/1/2003
Abstract:
In many journals and magazines there is a provision for readers to write a discussion of a publication, and then for authors to reply. My question is primarily about the reliability of responses. Do they, together with the letters, contribute to the elucidation of the issues raised in the paper in the first instance? I should add that this article is not about the processing of data or about statistical analyses; I propose to limit myself to the qualitative reliability of the written discussion of published material. The issue of reliability, or more correctly of lack of reliability, of scientific statements has been increasingly brought to the fore in recent years.