Abstract

Rychlak and Rychlak make a number of interesting points regarding my proposal for a model of manuscript review that is based on an adversary approach rather than on the traditional "empirical assessment" approach . In this paper, I address three issues raised by Rychlak and Rychlak: how the "burden of proof" should be allocated in the adversary model; what definition of "proof" would work best within the framework of the model; and how the adversary model changes the relationship of author, reviewer and editor during the manuscript review process. Continued discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the adversary model-and of the traditional manuscript review system-is clearly warranted