Justin Holman is CEO of Aftermarket Analytics, where he leads efforts to develop cutting edge sales forecasting and inventory optimization technology for the Automotive Aftermarket. Prior to joining Aftermarket Analytics, Justin managed corporate consulting for the Strategy & Analytics division at MapInfo Corporation, leading major projects for retail clients including The Home Depot, Darden Restaurants, Bridgestone-Firestone, Sainsbury’s and New York & Company. Before that, Justin served as Vice President of Software Development at LogicTools, now part of IBM's supply chain application software group. Justin holds a B.A. from Claremont McKenna College, a Ph.D. from the University of Oregon and an Executive Management certificate from Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.


  • Ron Scheurer - 229990 - Class of 1981 12 years ago

    An even smaller nutshell: You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.

  • Raymond 11 years ago

    And I imagine you dare Justin-ify publishing this paper while firmly cramming your tongue squarely against one or the other of your cheeks inside your mouth, since I didn’t notice your alternative(other than the cartoon panel)to peer review unless…you’re guided by the YEC publishing argument which says it’s okay to bypass established knowledge gained thus far in the scientific community on the proposed subject you’re exploring with the paper you wrote. YECs want to go from writing a paper entitling it, and then with no in between steps that include others in the field even reading it let alone comparing the paper to accepted facts of the issue or the topic conclusions reached(In YECs case, g-d dunn it, and Evolution is flawed, therefore creationism is true). 🙂
    Granted, all sorts of obfuscation and red tape probably slows and inhibits any fast-tracking of the peer review process, and egos, and other human flaws and poorly designed human vetting systems like maybe tenure playing a part that hurts the peer review process.
    I recall working at Johns Hopkins Hospital as a Biomedical Engineering Technician and though info I have about it is 2nd hand from the doc friends I knew there, the physician intern process seemed as if it required the interns and even resident docs to pay their dues, in long hours, low pay, mounting medical school debt, etc. And the folks I knew in the program bitched and complained frequently, but seemed to know in order to become a medical doctor certain sacrifices need be made. So, maybe the peer review process in science, though not perfect, is the way it is because if it was really easy then anybody could do it, and then the dues paid would then become a situation of ease and little challenge. Saying that, I know any process can be made better and hopefully the peer review process in science red tape lessens and actually results in a system that reveals the best knowledge and new ideas being presented.
    In traveling from point A to B, is it better to go always the most expensive way, as in an air conditioned high priced auto with top creature comforts when in actuality it is the cargo being delivered in perfect undamaged shape that is the most important consideration not the comfort of the person who’s delivering the cargo.
    What WOULD/COULD replace the peer review process?Or rather than replace it, just revamp it a bit to streamline it with the best and the latest facts and knowledge gained on the particular subject reviewed by the scholars/experts in the end. Science has a few things with it that is a bit of a sticky situation, and that is, that it is humans with their accompanying psychology who is doing the science. Humans with their egos, and personality traits, quirks and such; and remember science does require folks with a…uh…high enough intelligence, an ability to grasp the finer points of their subject matter or at least folks who are of above average intelligence who are willing to persevere and be honest&determined&diligent enough in their pursuit of scientific knowledge, to downplay or limit the negative impacts of these psychological quirks which may get in the way. And just how much of this human psychology is a part of the flaws in the peer review process? Nice article, Justin, thnx, loved the cartoon panel.

    • Justin 11 years ago

      Hi Raymond – thanks for the comment! I admit that I don’t have a well-thought-out alternative to offer – I think some sort of structured crowd sourcing would be helpful. Three reviewers is too few and the process takes too long. I had to look up YEC to figure out that you were referring to Young Earth Creationists. I think there’s plenty of room for a less restrictive publishing model that still is able to identify/categorize efforts to promote alternative theories, like creationism, that are driven by something other than scientific inquiry. Cheers, Justin

  • Universities Ignore Students at their Peril | Geographical Perspectives 10 years ago

    […] professors. By the way, the journal articles are all reviewed by other professors as well through a ridiculous gauntlet of editorial bureaucracy that kills off any truly creative ideas early and […]

  • The Lost Art Of Reviewing: Hints for Reviewers and Authors » The Delocalized Physicist 9 years ago

    […] (source via Geographical Perspectives) […]

Leave a Reply