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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390894 > unrolled thread

Request for Peer Review

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#391725

On 9/7/2016 2:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/2016 12:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> If his peers (masters in electrical engineering) are not qualified to
>>>> judge the paper, then how is he (a master in electrical engineering)
>>>> qualified to write the paper?
>>> There is a chance that he is not, but that is beside the point.  “Peer
>>> review” does _not_ mean review from one’s closest peers, for example not
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> only by peers from within the field one has a degree in.
>>
>> That's interesting. So what do you think "peer" means?
>
> I have marked the important part that – I assume in your favor – you were
> not able to see.

Well, it seems you've told me that "peer review" does not mean "review 
by one's peers", but you've not told me what you think it means instead. 
I'd be curious whether you think "black cube" does not mean "cube that 
is black".

>
>>>>> […] you are contradicting yourself.
>>>> How so?
>>> First you suggested to him that he should submit it “to his peers”
>>> (applying your very narrow understanding of “peer review”), then you are
>>> claiming that “peer review” is not to be solicited by the author (him).
>>> Those approaches are contradictory; make up your mind.
>>
>> I in no way suggested that he should submit it to his peers.
>
> | 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?
>
>   —“Odd Bodkin” in <news:npnelf$ngb$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Yes, not that it is a QUESTION, not a suggestion. I am asking why, if it 
is his declared intent to ask for a review for peers, he is in fact not 
doing that.

Likewise, if it were his declared intent to set himself on fire, and he 
instead jumped into a lake, then I would question why is is not doing 
what he said he intended to do. But that should not be taken as a 
suggestion that he set himself on fire. Why is this hard for you?

>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> But in the present context (see quoted from OP), he intends to submit to
>>>> a scientific journal.
>>> And he is asking the subscribers of a newsgroup that was created to
>>> discuss matters in the pertaining field to review his work before he
>>> does, which is a legitimate request (no matter what the degree of
>>> nonsense in work might be, and likely is in this case).
>>
>> Which is fine, but this newsgroup is not an assembly of his peers
>> (masters in electrical engineering), which is what he claimed he was
>> seeking reviews from.
>
> No, *you* indicated that this was the group he ought to send it to,

"This" meaning an assembly of his peers? Again, I was questioning why he 
was not doing what he said he intended to do, not suggesting that he 
should do as he said he intended. See fire and lake.

> and that
> it were inappropriate to post it here.
>
> *And that is where you are wrong.*
>

It's fine to post it here for comments. Doing so is not gathering peer 
review. It is neither peer review by the standard held by the journal to 
which he stated he intended to submit. Nor is it actually an assembly of 
his peers. It is completely fine to submit it here for comments by an 
assembly of people who are not his peers and who would not qualify as 
reviewers for the journal to which he intends to submit. Capiche?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391726

On 9/7/2016 3:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 2:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2016 12:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> If his peers (masters in electrical engineering) are not qualified to
>>>>> judge the paper, then how is he (a master in electrical engineering)
>>>>> qualified to write the paper?
>>>> There is a chance that he is not, but that is beside the point.  “Peer
>>>> review” does _not_ mean review from one’s closest peers, for example
>>>> not
>>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> only by peers from within the field one has a degree in.
>>>
>>> That's interesting. So what do you think "peer" means?
>>
>> I have marked the important part that – I assume in your favor – you were
>> not able to see.
>
> Well, it seems you've told me that "peer review" does not mean "review
> by one's peers", but you've not told me what you think it means instead.
> I'd be curious whether you think "black cube" does not mean "cube that
> is black".
>
>>
>>>>>> […] you are contradicting yourself.
>>>>> How so?
>>>> First you suggested to him that he should submit it “to his peers”
>>>> (applying your very narrow understanding of “peer review”), then you
>>>> are
>>>> claiming that “peer review” is not to be solicited by the author (him).
>>>> Those approaches are contradictory; make up your mind.
>>>
>>> I in no way suggested that he should submit it to his peers.
>>
>> | 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?
>>
>>   —“Odd Bodkin” in <news:npnelf$ngb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>
> Yes, not that it is a QUESTION, not a suggestion. I am asking why, if it
> is his declared intent to ask for a review for peers, he is in fact not
> doing that.
>
> Likewise, if it were his declared intent to set himself on fire, and he
> instead jumped into a lake, then I would question why is is not doing
> what he said he intended to do. But that should not be taken as a
> suggestion that he set himself on fire. Why is this hard for you?
>
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> But in the present context (see quoted from OP), he intends to
>>>>> submit to
>>>>> a scientific journal.
>>>> And he is asking the subscribers of a newsgroup that was created to
>>>> discuss matters in the pertaining field to review his work before he
>>>> does, which is a legitimate request (no matter what the degree of
>>>> nonsense in work might be, and likely is in this case).
>>>
>>> Which is fine, but this newsgroup is not an assembly of his peers
>>> (masters in electrical engineering), which is what he claimed he was
>>> seeking reviews from.
>>
>> No, *you* indicated that this was the group he ought to send it to,
>
> "This" meaning an assembly of his peers? Again, I was questioning why he
> was not doing what he said he intended to do, not suggesting that he
> should do as he said he intended. See fire and lake.
>
>> and that
>> it were inappropriate to post it here.
>>
>> *And that is where you are wrong.*
>>
>
> It's fine to post it here for comments. Doing so is not gathering peer
> review. It is neither peer review by the standard held by the journal to
> which he stated he intended to submit. Nor is it actually an assembly of
> his peers. It is completely fine to submit it here for comments by an
> assembly of people who are not his peers and who would not qualify as
> reviewers for the journal to which he intends to submit. Capiche?
>
>

In general, let me just add that you spend a significant amount of time 
insisting that you know fully well what I intended to convey with my 
comments, despite my explicit disavowal of that. Rather than insisting 
that you are clairvoyant, might you consider asking whether this is in 
fact what I intended to convey? If I said something that you have 
misconstrued, I'd be happy to clarify for your benefit, so that you do 
not continue to bash your cranium on a flat stone out of some principle 
you hold dear.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391969

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 9/7/2016 2:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 9/6/2016 12:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> […] you are contradicting yourself.
>>>>> How so?
>>>> First you suggested to him that he should submit it “to his peers”
>>>> (applying your very narrow understanding of “peer review”), then you
>>>> are claiming that “peer review” is not to be solicited by the author
>>>> (him). Those approaches are contradictory; make up your mind.
>>>
>>> I in no way suggested that he should submit it to his peers.
>>
>> | 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?
>>
>>   —“Odd Bodkin” in <news:npnelf$ngb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> 
> Yes, not that it is a QUESTION, not a suggestion.

The suggestion is implied in the question, and you know it.

> I am asking why, if it is his declared intent to ask for a review for
> peers, he is in fact not doing that.

You could have skipped that question, because the question presupposes the 
correctness of your misconception that a peer review of a paper must be done 
by the peers in the same field of study that one is primarily working in or 
educated in, instead of in the field of study that concerns itself with the 
topic of the paper.

For example, when an someone who has an education as electrical engineer 
wants to publish a paper on gravitation, the peer review has to be done by 
physicists, preferably those who are experts in theories of gravitation, and 
not by electrical engineers.

-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392098

On 9/10/2016 10:10 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2016 2:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 9/6/2016 12:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> […] you are contradicting yourself.
>>>>>> How so?
>>>>> First you suggested to him that he should submit it “to his peers”
>>>>> (applying your very narrow understanding of “peer review”), then you
>>>>> are claiming that “peer review” is not to be solicited by the author
>>>>> (him). Those approaches are contradictory; make up your mind.
>>>>
>>>> I in no way suggested that he should submit it to his peers.
>>>
>>> | 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?
>>>
>>>   —“Odd Bodkin” in <news:npnelf$ngb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>
>> Yes, not that it is a QUESTION, not a suggestion.
>
> The suggestion is implied in the question, and you know it.

Here you are claiming clairvoyance again. I have told you explicitly my 
intention, as well as the distinction between that intention and the 
inference you drew. The fact that you ignore that speaks volumes.

>
>> I am asking why, if it is his declared intent to ask for a review for
>> peers, he is in fact not doing that.
>
> You could have skipped that question, because the question presupposes the
> correctness of your misconception that a peer review of a paper must be done
> by the peers in the same field of study that one is primarily working in or
> educated in, instead of in the field of study that concerns itself with the
> topic of the paper.
>
> For example, when an someone who has an education as electrical engineer
> wants to publish a paper on gravitation, the peer review has to be done by
> physicists, preferably those who are experts in theories of gravitation, and
> not by electrical engineers.
>

Which is not what he has solicited here, has he? Nor has he solicited 
peers from HIS field of expertise.

If a plumber wanted to get a review of a paper on a medical treatment 
but did not in fact submit it for review by medical doctors or medical 
researchers, but instead walked into a coffee shop and asked those 
people to provide a "peer review", that would not be to the claimed 
purpose in either sense of the word.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392115

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 9/10/2016 10:10 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> For example, when [someone] who has an education as electrical engineer
>> wants to publish a paper on gravitation, the peer review has to be done
>> by physicists, preferably those who are experts in theories of
>> gravitation, and not by electrical engineers.
> 
> Which is not what he has solicited here, has he?

Yes, HE HAS.

> Nor has he solicited peers from HIS field of expertise.

Because that would not make sense.  HE IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL PHYSICIST.

> If a plumber wanted to get a review of a paper on a medical treatment
> but did not in fact submit it for review by medical doctors or medical
> researchers, but instead walked into a coffee shop and asked those
> people to provide a "peer review", that would not be to the claimed
> purpose in either sense of the word.

OMG.  Honey, the buses don’t go where you live, yes?  In analogy, you were 
STUPIDLY suggesting to the PLUMBER, by asking the PLUMBER why he did not do 
that (instead), that the PLUMBER should ask HIS FELLOW PLUMBERS for the 
review of the paper that HE HAD WRITTEN on a MEDICAL treatment HE INVENTED.

If you don’t get it now, then sorry, I don’t have the crayons to explain it 
to you.

EOD

-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392116

On 9/11/2016 9:02 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2016 10:10 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> For example, when [someone] who has an education as electrical engineer
>>> wants to publish a paper on gravitation, the peer review has to be done
>>> by physicists, preferably those who are experts in theories of
>>> gravitation, and not by electrical engineers.
>>
>> Which is not what he has solicited here, has he?
>
> Yes, HE HAS.

Sorry, but no. You are not a physicist. If you consider yourself one of 
the solicited, then you prove the case.

Practicing physicists who are experts in the theory of gravitation do 
not constitute the majority of the posters in sci.physics.relativity. 
There are maybe a couple of exceptions to that statement.

Therefore by soliciting here, he is not seeking reviews from practicing 
physicists who are preferably experts in theories of gravitation.

>
>> Nor has he solicited peers from HIS field of expertise.
>
> Because that would not make sense.  HE IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL PHYSICIST.

Nevertheless, consider what he EXPLICITLY classed as a peer. Anyone with 
a master's degree. NOT, as you stated, a physicist. NOT, as you stated, 
someone with expertise in theories of gravitation. Thus by HIS 
declaration, not yours, he is not really seeking the peers that you 
would rightly suggest.

>
>> If a plumber wanted to get a review of a paper on a medical treatment
>> but did not in fact submit it for review by medical doctors or medical
>> researchers, but instead walked into a coffee shop and asked those
>> people to provide a "peer review", that would not be to the claimed
>> purpose in either sense of the word.
>
> OMG.  Honey, the buses don’t go where you live, yes?  In analogy, you were
> STUPIDLY suggesting to the PLUMBER, by asking the PLUMBER why he did not do
> that (instead), that the PLUMBER should ask HIS FELLOW PLUMBERS for the
> review of the paper that HE HAD WRITTEN on a MEDICAL treatment HE INVENTED.

Nor has he solicited reviews from practicing physicists who are 
preferably experts in theories of gravitation, because he came to the 
moral equivalent of a coffee shop (here) to ask around for one, and he 
was EXPLICITLY nonspecific about asking for opinions from physicists.

>
> If you don’t get it now, then sorry, I don’t have the crayons to explain it
> to you.

Nor the dexterity.
I gather the Richter scale was invented to measure your father's 
disappointment.

>
> EOD
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392135

Odd Bodkin Pondering Peer Review:

No one is an Expert on Gravity or they would be able to show its root cause. 

No one knows where it comes from ..... No one is an expert yet 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391085

For you, a peer is a kook who spews incoherent blather.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391091

On August 25, Alan Folmsbee, B.S.E.E.,  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. 

Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D, who used to participate on 
this board, and verified the extrasensory abilities of Uri 
Geller (which he modeled using QM entanglement), will be 
glad to peer you.  He can also recommend suitable journals.

And Fritjof Capra will surely like you on Fazebook -   

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391119

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 6:10:27 PM UTC-10, RichD wrote:
> On August 25, Alan Folmsbee, B.S.E.E.,  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. 
> 
> Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D, who used to participate on 
> this board, and verified the extrasensory abilities of Uri 
> Geller (which he modeled using QM entanglement), will be 
> glad to peer you.  He can also recommend suitable journals.
> 
> And Fritjof Capra will surely like you on Fazebook -   
> 
> --
> Rich

Hello Rich D. , thank your for your interest in society. You can send an email to a privacy-enabled email address:

folmsbee at protonmail dot com

By using your real name your will be offered the opportunity to qualify as a peer who receives the 12 page .pdf file.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web