I understand that there are history journals, which may or may not be doing the same type of "peer review" as the hard science journals do. But I was trying to address just the smaller point of "BLPs".

My thesis being that there is no such thing as a "peer reviewed" biography in the same sense as a "peer reviewed" article on solid-state physics. It just doesn't exist.

*That* later historians *comment* upon previous biographies may be true, but their comments, later, do not change the original paper or book. They are accretive only, not constructive or destructive.

So my thesis being, that "peer review" really has no bearing on BLPs at all.

Will Johnson

**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)