The 2012 SNAME Annual Conference in October 2012 was an excellent event, and there were many moments where I was deeply impressed with the value I received simply by attending. The Annual Conference truly is the kitchen of our profession and all the different events during the conference try to address one or more different aspects of our complex profession.
In the end our profession may be defined as: A group of individuals, who, combined, ensure that, on a technological level, humanity can use and traverse the oceans in a safe, profitable and sustainable manner. Almost by definition SNAME then is the keeper of the flame of the profession in the US and an important player in the world. This flame keeping mostly takes place through SNAME’s publications and it was at the conference’s meeting that I ran into one of the most interesting discussions during the conference. I had a few minutes between meetings, saw the sign of the Publications Committee on the open door of a meeting room and asked if I could sit in. (I have never been refused by anybody at SNAME in being able to sit in, and cannot recommend sitting in too highly) During the meeting the issue of “peer review” was discussed. Peer review is a hallmark of a learned society, and was developed to ensure that a learned society provides a certain level of certification before a paper is published and disseminated to the rest of its membership, and ultimately, the world. SNAME carefully husbands this hallmark through various channels. The main path related to peer review within SNAME relates to publication of papers in the Journals and Transactions. These papers are submitted to a committee who review the subject for relevance, and then submit the paper to members who are authorities on the subject to ensure that the paper provides the highest possible level of truth in the findings discussed in the paper. This is a subtle and complex philosophical subject (truth always is), but its aim is twofold: It provides the author with a high level of authority on his publication and ensures that the learned society does not inadvertently publish less than truthful papers. In the end the Society benefits by being able to publish papers by the highest authorities in their field and the authors receive a certain level of “status” that can aid them in their careers.
To this day, academic advancement is very heavily measured by a scientist’s peer reviewed and published papers and SNAME performs a very important professional role in that regard. But this last sentence hides a subtle untruth. Our profession is engineering, and while engineering very heavily depends on the essential work of scientists (and our SNAME scientists are an essential component of SNAME), in the engineering profession, the publication of peer reviewed papers (cutting edge academically oriented papers) may be less important than obtaining information that prevents engineers from performing work that ends up killing somebody, harming the environment, or society as a whole. As such, engineers do not necessarily look for the cutting edge; they look for that edge that has such a high level of authority that, when applied in engineering, will not result in engineering failures. That latter edge may be found in a peer reviewed paper, but more often is found in publications that incorporate peer reviewed papers, but have progressed beyond that level. One such example is SNAME’s world famous “Principles of Naval Architecture” and there are many equally important but less well known publications that are also being carefully tended by SNAME, its members and its staff.
This difference in aims for engineers and scientists can lead to very interesting (but actually unnecessary) tensions and confusions. My father often complained that the “Old” Marine Technology was nothing but a bunch of integral signs that did not help him as an engineer, while, today, I understand that SNAME scientists bemoan the loss of peer review of (mt). That debate testifies to the spectrum of “users” within SNAME. Meanwhile, as often happens, the truth is somewhere in the middle and complex, and also incomplete. The last part, the “incomplete” part is really the discovery that was made at the Publications Committee meeting, and only could have developed during a discussion of knowledgeable and diverse SNAME members (which then proves the importance of our SNAME annual meetings).
The discovery made within the meeting relates to the fact that we have a path for classic peer review in our publications (Transactions and our Journals), but that, rather untransparent, service is not clearly communicated to our membership. Furthermore, as a learned society, we also are less than clear about the level of peer review of our other publications. This last sentence again refers to the scientist/engineer confusions that can occur in SNAME. All peer review is vital, but there are huge differences in peer review. Some peer review is from a scientific point of view alone (Were correct scientific principals applied?), while other peer review may be from an engineering point of view alone (Forget the science approach; can an engineer use this information and prevent engineering failures?). We simply need to be clear so the reader of a SNAME publication can figure out what the information in the publication implies.
As such, we should issue a number of different standards for our publications, identify all SNAME publication with one or more of these standards, and clearly define what these standards imply with regard to the information in the publication.
At this stage I am proposing the following very rough, preliminary, incomplete and non-verified standards hierarchy:
SNAME Gold (latest active update): This publication contains information that is readily applied in the industry, has been SNAME updated to the latest version and correction, tested in actual use (with corrections and comments included in the publication), peer discussed and peer reviewed and peer edited. PNA probably fits in this category, but it is a subtle issue. As such the “old” printed PNA could be SNAME Gold 2010, if issued with proper errata sheets and cautions. Since PNA is no longer supported it could never be SNAME Gold 2012. SNAME Gold would be very difficult to obtain in the first year of an edition of PNA, since, while it might have more relevant info than the old PNA, its field testing (correctness of equations, and application experience with new concepts) may still be limited. Still many SNAME documents can be listed as SNAME Gold. As such, the Davidson 1930’s sailboat model testing papers can be listed SNAME Gold 2012 with only a single caveat: While there are newer methods and updated coefficients, the methods in these papers are still sound and valid. For updated coefficients consult later SNAME papers.
SNAME Silver (latest active update): This publication contains the thinking of a large group of knowledgeable SNAME engineers and scientists on a developing subject and, as far as known, is the state of the art on the subject, but should only be applied by knowledgeable engineers on the subject.
SNAME Bronze (latest active update): This publication has been accepted as a leading working document on the subject. It is cutting edge and at this time cannot be directly applied in engineering, but presents the cutting edge as far as is available within SNAME, and no other more advanced publications are known to be available outside the society.
SNAME Peer Reviewed and Discussed (latest active update): This publication was prepared under peer review and has been presented in a SNAME forum where it was further subjected to review and discussion. At least three SNAME Member Author Certified discussions are provided and the author has provided a written response to the discussions.
SNAME Peer Reviewed (latest active update): This paper has received standard SNAME peer review. (I understand that the definition of “peer review” is under peer review and will not further delve into this standard)
SNAME Discussed (latest active update): This paper has been presented in a SNAME forum where it was subjected to discussion. At least three SNAME Member Author Certified discussions are provided and the author has provided a written response to the discussions.
SNAME Member Author Certified (latest active update): This is a probably the most novel category and responds to a disturbing trend that I have been noticing in non-SNAME engineering publications. In the last decade or so the standard of accuracy in engineering publications has declined. Today it is entirely possible for an organization such as the National Society of Professional Engineers to publish data in its flag ship publication (named PE) that is simply incorrect by allowing authors with an agenda to misstate the truth. To avoid such distortion, SNAME could introduce this category for its publications. This certification is performed by the SNAME member authors themselves. When submitting this paper the member simply states: I have prepared this publication according to the SNAME Code of Ethics. Furthermore, I state that when I prepared this publication I included a balanced view of the subject and did not omit any information that I was aware of that did not support my point of view, findings or opinions. I will respond on the SNAME website to any SNAME member challenges made to errors and omissions in this publication. If I do not respond the paper will be listed as “SNAME Member Challenged”, and will not be available for dissemination outside SNAME member channels or further peer review status.
Not Prepared to a SNAME Standard: This is the default SNAME publication level. It could mean that the publication is harmless within the context of our profession and does not involve scientific or engineering debate (See: “A Chronology of Boating on the Navesink River”), or that the author is writing in jest (As in commenting on the performance of member racers in the SNAME regatta), or that the author is commenting on a commercial or political issue outside the realm of our profession.
I suspect that the first question will be: How can all this be managed? The lower levels are relatively easy, or are already being applied in the SNAME structure. With regard to “relatively easy” I note that for publications that circulate within the SNAME web structure, comment and discussion functions have already been implemented, and actually we are already doing the review organically up to the level of “SNAME Peer Reviewed and Discussed”. The Bronze, Silver and Gold standards will take a little bit more of thinking, but can be started and tested at any time. But here is the marvelous part of it all; this process will help SNAME in controlling and benefitting from its catalogue and in growing membership. SNAME should continually list changes in SNAME standard levels for all its publications, and this should only be available to members.
As such, only members can have access to the true heartbeat of the profession and SNAME can manage its publications and protect its property in real time. Instead of using a 1950’s SNAME publication as a reference or to make a legal or professional point, only SNAME members will know if this document is still a “standard” and what type of standard it actually is at this point in time instead of in the 1950’s. No more (illegal) photocopying of old publications outside our Society, because only the most recently SNAME issued (and paid for) latest active update copy of the paper will have the imprimatur that shows what the information means within today’s state of the art.
I suspect that the legal profession will be commenting on the above discussion. But let’s remember one thing: Only scientists have a handle on the truth in science and only engineers have a handle on the truth in engineering. Lawyers seek the help from committed and honorable scientists and engineers, and can only judge it with our help. Scientific or engineering truth is our job and our job alone.
I certify the above as “SNAME Member Author Certified” and welcome further discussion.