In this posting Mr. Peck clearly implies that Mr. Steiger's
professionalism is suspect because this essay was written in conflict of
interest and his then-affiliation with Systat Inc. was disclosed by Steiger
only after SPSS forced Mr. Steiger and the journal to do so.
In 13 years of editing this journal, we have followed a very consistent policy
which seems to be accepted by everyone except certain individuals affiliated
with SPSS. This policy is to seek out essays by individuals prominent in their
fields and in the essays request that the authors comment on various software
pertinent to the area, not just their own. When authors fail to make
comparisons, our peer reviewers routinely fault the author and request that
comparisons be made. There seems to be wide agreement that this is a better
service to our readers.
Five years ago we commissioned Mr. Steiger to write an essay overviewing
developments in statistical applications for the social sciences. We selected
him because of his general reputation and work. Mr. Peck maligns us and Mr.
Steiger by suggesting his selection was due to a paucity of individuals
available for this purpose. The contrary is true, but Mr. Steiger was selected
purely on grounds of professional merit.
Mr. Peck further maligns us and Mr. Steiger by arguing that Mr. Steiger's
affiliation was acknowledged only because we were forced to do so by SPSS.
This is not true. In the article itself Mr. Steiger explicitly refers to "my
own computer program, EZPATH". Moreover his biographical sketch, which
includes acknowledgment of his authorship of EZPATH (a module in SYSTAT) was
written in response to our form letter for authors, which requires a
biographical sketch. The biographical sketch was not forced upon Mr. Steiger
or us by SPSS.
It is true that the actions of SPSS, which included allusions to suing our
journal, did lead us to add an editorial note to the article. We still stand
by that note, quoted below.
I recall at the time that cooler heads at SPSS acknowledged to me on the phone
that SPSS Inc. might indeed benefit from greater interaction with social
science users. I was told in no uncertain terms that SPSS would be getting
together users for purposes of improving SPSS, and that our journal, SSCORE,
and its readership would be involved. Although I never heard from SPSS again
until this unfortunate exchange in sci.stat.edu, I do note that SPSS did make
changes in its product which are responsive to the criticisms made by Mr.
Steiger (and many others) at the time. I know that our methods instructors
here at my own institution are delighted with the improvements. Where at the
time Mr. Steiger was writing, they had voted to switch from SPSS to another
product, they have almost unanimously returned to the SPSS fold. It seems to
me in retrospect that the process of criticism was beneficial to the
profession and profitable to SPSS as a corporation in the long run. It seems
to me that Mr. Steiger acted in a thoroughly professional manner for which he
should be thanked, not maligned based on untruths.
Our statement at the time read as follows:
Publication of Professor Steiger's insightful essay 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.
It is our policy to secure the best and most useful essays and reviews we can.
There are relatively few social scientists who are also expert in computing.
Many of the most talented individuals, such as Professor Steiger, have also
published computer programs with one or another vendor. It is our view that it
is approrpriate and desirable that such individuals share their work with the
social science computing community. We also believe it is useful to our
readers if that work is compared with other software familiar to our readers.
We believe in the importance of pointing out such publiching connections, as
Professor Steiger has done in his opening foortnote. We also believe our
readers are intelligent enough to judge for themselves.
We do welcome opposing viewpoints and believe that discussion of this is a
valid service to our readers. There will be a short response from SPSS, Inc.,
in our Summer, 1991, issue. We veel that publishing that communication is
academically and ethically appropriate as is publishing Professor Steiger's
article in the current issue.
[ End of statement]