Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391035

Re: Request for Peer Review

Show all headers | View raw

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 8/25/2016 12:08 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>> My 12 page paper on gravity is ready to be submitted to a journal. I
>> would like the paper to have peer reviews done before the final version
>> is sent off. If you have a master of science degree you are a peer.
> 
> Several comments.
> 
> You have a masters in electrical engineering. If you would like your
> paper reviewed by peers, why are you not submitting it to a group of
> electrical engineers with masters degrees?

Because they are not qualified to judge.  The subject of the paper is well 
outside of their field.  (That was an easy one.)

> Submitting to a group with masters degrees in a different discipline than 
> yours is not really a solicitation from peers.

Nonsense.  You are splitting hairs.

> Peer review is something that is done by the journal post-submission and
> pre-publication.

That is *one* way.

> It is not something that is solicited by the author, it
> is something solicited by the editorial staff of the journal.

Nonsense.  And you are contradicting yourself.
 
> Do you have an idea of what journal you plan to submit to? You will have
> to format according to their submission guidelines, depending on the
> choice.

A scientific paper does not have to be submitted to a scientific journal per 
se.  Some are only submitted to conferences, some are never formally 
submitted.

In fact, there is an ongoing debate as to whether the journal publication 
process these days is helping or hindering scientific progress, and whether 
the journal-based peer-review process is still working. [1]  Hence pre-print 
servers like arXiv.org [2] (which Steven Carlip, physicist, University of 
California at Davis, explained to us that to refer to is “the standard 
practice” in his field [3]).

Noticed that the *CERN*-published journal, Physics Letters (of all the 
journals!), infamously rejected Higgs’s paper on what we now call Higgs 
bosons?  He then submitted it to Physics Review Letters who published it, 
but who knows what might have happened if he did not?  Maybe someone would 
have found it anyway.

[1] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/>
    <https://explorable.com/disadvantages-of-peer-reviews>
    <https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-importance-and-limitations-of-peer-review/>
    <https://www.gcu.ac.uk/library/pilot/publication/peerreview/advantagesanddisadvantages/>
    <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science>
    <http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rethinking-peer-review>
    etc.; google e.g. “peer review drawbacks”
[2] <http://arxiv.org/help/primer>
[3] <news:nkdamu$55e$1@dont-email.me>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 10:08 -0700
  Re: Request for Peer Review Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-08-25 19:20 +0200
    Re: Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 09:31 -0700
  Re: Request for Peer Review "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-25 10:29 -0700
    Re: Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 07:34 -0700
      Re: Request for Peer Review astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-27 09:23 -0700
  Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 13:50 -0500
    Re: Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:26 -0700
    Re: Request for Peer Review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-27 09:15 +0200
      Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 08:38 -0500
        Re: Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 09:03 -0700
          Re: Request for Peer Review "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-06 09:15 -0700
            Re: Request for Peer Review "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-06 10:46 -0700
          Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 17:08 -0500
            Re: Request for Peer Review benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-06 19:23 -0400
        Re: Request for Peer Review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-06 19:04 +0200
          Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 17:20 -0500
            Re: Request for Peer Review benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-06 19:38 -0400
              Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 07:29 -0500
            Re: Request for Peer Review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-07 21:57 +0200
              Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 15:22 -0500
                Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 15:26 -0500
                Re: Request for Peer Review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-10 17:10 +0200
                Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:57 -0500
                Re: Request for Peer Review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-12 04:02 +0200
                Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 21:50 -0500
                Re: Request for Peer Review "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 06:09 -0700
  Re: Request for Peer Review pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-08-27 19:53 -0700
  Re: Request for Peer Review RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 21:10 -0700
    Re: Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 09:20 -0700

csiph-web