Questions

Reader comment on: Crovitz on Anonymity

Submitted by BillW (United States), Nov 30, 2009 15:04

In a perfect world neither peer-reviewers nor whistle-blowers should be anonymous. In a world where "peer-reviewers" collude with charlatans to exclude valid science from publication, these peer-reviewers need to be known. In a world where "peer-reviewers" collude with charlatans to actively work to destroy the reputations of those who dissent from their orthodoxy, whistle-blowers deserve anonymity. This person has done the world a great service.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
Climate Gate [125 words]Quinn WoodworthDec 1, 2009 14:16
"Heed My Opinion!" vs. "Look At What I Found!" [210 words]bobby bNov 30, 2009 15:41
then whats the point of this site? [60 words]FenNov 30, 2009 15:37
apples and oranges [102 words]JeffNov 30, 2009 15:35
Why is it different? [56 words]scottNov 30, 2009 15:31
Tit for tat [57 words]agesilausNov 30, 2009 15:13
Coastal property...
[w/response] [24 words]		newscaperNov 30, 2009 15:09
⇒ Questions [65 words]BillWNov 30, 2009 15:04
Whistleblowing is different than stealing or trespassing [108 words]IndependentNov 30, 2009 15:03
All secrets are not the same [109 words]Shannon LoveNov 30, 2009 14:53
caution in revolutions [53 words]Michael KennedyNov 30, 2009 14:47

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Questions by BillW

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.