Насчет "non-peer-reviewd" - тот же батюшка гугль, вместе с матушкой википедией, немедленно обнаруживают:
Under the settlement, Levitt is to send a letter to McCall indicating the following:
* Contrary to his 2005 email claim that the 2001 special issue of the JLE "was not a peer-refereed edition of the Journal," Levitt will concede "that the articles that were published in the conference issue were reviewed by referees engaged by the editors of the JLE. In fact, I was one of the peer referees."
* Contrary to his 2005 email claim that Lott "put in only work that supported him" in the 1999 conference, Levitt will admit that he had been invited by Lott to submit a paper for the conference. (Levitt did not do so.) Levitt will also state that "At the time of my May 2005 e-mails to you, I knew that scholars with varying opinions had been invited to participate in the 1999 conference and had been informed that their papers would be considered for publication in what became the conference issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Defamation_suit
Хотя к содержательной стороне исходного постинга, к которому вы почему-то привязались, вопрос о peer-review вообще никакого касательства не имеет... |
![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/imported-profile.gif){kind=small}