The sociology of rejection: How editors and reviewers justify rejecting critical manuscripts

Criticisms of the ISO’s inspector employment scheme do not exist in the scientific literature.  There isn’t a single reason for this.  Mostly scientists and medics have fallen into the necessary groupthink and don’t challenge the waves of demands made on them.  Some of them love the glutinous layers of audit, mutual judgement, appraisal, revalidation, CPD and the rest.

Many just lack the time or originality to think bigger than what they have been told.  Just getting on with improving their area of work would be too simple.   They prefer the grandiose to the barely-visible.

Probably, few papers are even being submitted that expose ISO accreditation as worthless. That responsibility currently rests with the non-scientists and bloggers.  However, Pubpeer has listed some comments on why editors and reviewers reject articles that challenge an established paradigm:

“The sociology of rejection: How editors and reviewers justify rejecting critical manuscripts”

Just so you know.  The evidence base is not even fragmentary.  Scientists still need to read the criticisms of ISO 9000 outside the scientific literature to develop their damning investigations of ISO 17025 and ISO 15189.  Then they need to publish its failure and show the alternative.

The reviewers and editors aren’t going to warm to John Seddon’s common-sense solution of just stop doing it.  It’s too simple to be an alternative theory.


This entry was posted in Medicine, NHS, Practical problems, Science and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s