Subject: (Lundquist) BEMS treatment of my meeting abstracts (fwd)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 101555 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 23 Mar 99 09:03:33 MST
From: MARJORIE LUNDQUIST
To: Roy Beavers
Cc: Roger Coghill
Subject: BEMS treatment of my meeting abstracts
Roy, Roger Coghill wanted to know more about the rejection of some of my
abstracts by the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) Committee that
reviews and approves the submissions. Since he raised this issue in an
open forum, I'd like to reply similarly.
Anyone wanting to present a paper at a BEMS meeting must submit an
abstract of the paper to be presented; this is reviewed by a special
Committee and if it approves, the paper is scheduled for presentation.
I submitted four abstracts on three topics. Two of the abstracts dealt
with an exposure metric for nonthermal health hazards; there were two ways
to address this, so I thought it appropriate to put each one in a separate
paper.
My third abstract addressed the adequacy of the ANSI standard. My fourth
abstract applied what was learned about the nonthermal exposure metric
(covered in my first two abstracts) to the fields around electric power
lines.
My abstracts weren't exactly accepted, and they weren't exactly rejected.
Instead, I was notified that the committee wanted me to condense
everything into one, or possibly two, abstracts.
My initial response was emotional and negative, just as Roger's was.
Part of the reason I was upset was that no reason or explanation was given
to me for the failure to accept the abstracts as I had submitted them.
To make a long story short, one of the things the Committee tries to do
is to be fair to all the members who want to present papers at a meeting.
The amount of time and space at the meeting is finite, and the membership
has been growing, so the Committee is sensitive to the need to limit (in a
fair manner) the amount of time or space that any one member takes up.
An "unwritten rule" seems to have developed, according to which each
member can present one paper at each annual meeting. Since many papers
are co-authored, it is acceptable for a member's name to be on more than
one paper; for example, a team of 3 people could present 3 papers, because
each person would be a "1/3 author" of each paper. (I was not told any of
this; I just figured it out, based on what I WAS told, and I've since had
indications that this analysis comes pretty close to the mark.)
When I made inquiry afterward, I was told that never in the history of
BEMS had ONE person submitted as many as FOUR abstracts! My submissions
created a problem for the committee, because if it approved them, it was
allowing me to dominate the meeting! And that wouldn't be fair to other
members! (They may also have had doubts whether I could get four good
presentations prepared by the meeting date.)
The Committee tried to resolve this problem by asking me to condense
everything into a single abstract -- or at most, two. I'm sure it felt
it was making a concession to me by allowing me to present two papers,
rather than just one.
I'm satisfied that the Committee's request was reasonable, under the
circumstances. I combined my first two abstracts into a single one (as
they were both on the same topic, it wasn't difficult) and decided that my
power line abstract was more important than my ANSI standard abstract.
So what fell by the wayside was my discussion of the ANSI standard (which
might be more appropriately presented in some other forum, anyway).
To sum it up, I understand Roger's feelings because I shared them
initially. But when I calmed down and began gathering information, I
found that the BEMS committee was juggling several different concerns, all
of which were important, and I had really been treated rather well, under
the circumstances.
(Also, to prepare four papers for presentation at a single meeting was pretty
ambitious; I'll be quite busy preparing just the two that we settled on.) --
Marjorie
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html