Note my affiliation below.
It should be noted that Mr Steiger has some history on this
issue as well.
He coauthored a long article in the Social Science Computer Review
in the Winter 1990 issue entitled "Some Key Emerging Trends
in Statistical and Graphical Software for the Social Scientist" in which
the authors "examine the trends from the perspective of the social
scientist with a typical background in applied statistics, intent on
developing a high-power, low-cost personal workstation for data analysis
and manuscript production".
Much of the article is a comparative discussion of the major stat packages
for the PC and the Mac. While there is much discussion of comparative
merits of the packages, the final recommended configuration selects Systat 5
as the stat package component. (This, of course, predates the appearance
of Windows-based statistics packagaes.)
Only after a protest from SPSS, which was shown the manuscript by the
editors
of the journal (as, I believe, were the other vendors concerned), was the
following footnote added.
"The senior author wishes to point out that his computer program, EZPATH,
is marketed by SYSTAT Corp., whose products were evaluated favorably in
this review. We felt our evaluations were dispassionate, and our
conclusions
agree with a number of independent reviews of these products..."
The editors added a note to the article reading in part
"Publication of Professor Steiger's insightfull review has raised issues
concerning the policy of Social Science Computer Review regarding conflict
of interest. Prior to publication, this journal received a letter from SPSS
Inc
complaining about conflict of interest and objectivity in peer review. SPSS
questioned Professor Steiger's relationship with Systat as a violation of
the
peer review process.
"We disagree with their position and believe that removal of the article
would
be a disservice to the social science computing community"
The note goes on to suggest a scarcity of social scientists who are expert
in computing and that many such people have published computer programs
with a vendor and to suggest that discussion of this issue "is a valid
service
to our readers"
Apparently Prof Steiger did not feel it necessary to disclose his
affiliation
until the SPSS protest. Apparently Grant Blank was not even the reviewer
of Systat in the PC Magazine review, although I believe that the editors and
reviewers collectively discussed the Editor's Choice award.
So when should the reviewer's affiliation be disclosed? And when should
a candidate reviewer be disqualified for potential bias or even the
appearance
of bias?
-------------------------
Jon K. Peck
SPSS Inc
peck@spss.com