Another periodical, an able magazine, which makes much of reviews is under the control of a strong body of men, but they stand for scarcely more than one line of thought among many lines. And sometimes very sharp and very hard things are said about those who believe that scientific truth is moving along one of these other lines. Indeed, the discreet person, knowing personally the reviewer and the reviewed, will not be convinced that there is always in the reviews, here as elsewhere, an absence of personal animosity. Let us for a moment reflect on this personal element in reviews, as it has surely fallen under the notice of every man with wide experience in these matters. As a rule, the reviewers are comparatively young and inexperienced men, frequently zealous for some sect or faction. Sometimes great leaders of thought write reviews, but generally they are unable to find the time to do so. As a result in our reviews in the best periodicals it will frequently be found that an inferior is passing judgment on a superior, and furthermore, reviewers share in our common human nature, and the amount of personal bias and even at times personal malignity found in reviews and estimates of books is something sad to contemplate. An unsuccessful candidate for a position held by an author has been known to initiate a scandalous and altogether malicious attack in a review. In the next place, I would call your attention to the absence of objective standards. Necessarily are the standards personal and subjective; particularly and above all in economics, but in high degree in sociology, ethics and philosophy in general, and religion. Biological reviews have displayed in marked degree the subjective personal element. Chemistry, physics, astronomy and mathematics probably are best of all fitted for evaluations free from personal bias.