Long ago, George Sarton set down criteria for reviewers. In addition to insisting on the need to compose 'faithful' reviews, he cautioned against four types of unfit reviewers: the 'egoist', the 'obscure' reviewer, the one who is noncommittal, and the pedantic critic. Unfortunately, Cohen's review comes short on several counts. Cohen writes that he intends to examine what is 'new' in the three books he reviews, and whether the results therein contained are 'worth learning' (p. 687). Cohen denies being given to 'misplaced hero worship', insisting that his sole aim is to assess whether 'scholarly novelty' (p. 693) has been attained. Nevertheless, given his repeated rebuke of the authors under review for 'failing to refer back to [Richard] Westfall's work' on Newton - now nearly half a century old - it seems that he grounded his critique principally on Westfall's interpretation.

中文翻译：

---

对 H. Floris Cohen 关于牛顿奖学金的论文评论的回应

很久以前，乔治·萨顿（George Sarton）为审稿人制定了标准。除了坚持撰写“忠实”评论的必要性之外，他还告诫不要出现四种不合适的评论家：“利己主义者”、“晦涩难懂”的评论家、不置可否的评论家和迂腐的评论家。不幸的是，科恩的评论有几个方面的不足。Cohen 写道，他打算检查他所评论的三本书中的“新”内容，以及其中包含的结果是否“值得学习”（第 687 页）。科恩否认被赋予“错位的英雄崇拜”，坚持认为他的唯一目的是评估是否达到了“学术新颖性”（第 693 页）。尽管如此，鉴于他一再指责接受审查的作者“未能回顾 [Richard] Westfall 的作品”