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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#390894 — Request for Peer Review

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. 

"Gravity Volume Theory"

Abstract

Gravity is a volume effect, so it is proposed that the cause of gravity is a source of a volume change inside protons and neutrons. 3D space is treated as a liquid flowing into baryons at a constant rate of cubic meters per second. For the 4D continuum to be conserved, time flows out of each baryon. The magnitudes of those flows are used to derive factors of Newton’s constant G and Planck’s Constant. This theory provides a prediction of the relativistic conditions for a white dwarf star to go nova. This axiomatic system uses an abstraction to justify The Mass Equals Area Theorem. The results have produced a Periodic Table of Units of Measure and a persuasive argument for gravity powering electromagnetism. The expansion of the universe is proposed to be a part of gravity for a unified Graviticspansion Theory.

Alan Folmsbee, MSEE

12 page .pdf file with 43 equations

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#390895

Le 25/08/2016 à 19:08, Alan Folmsbee a écrit :
> 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.

I do.

> "Gravity Volume Theory"
>
> Abstract
>
> Gravity is a volume effect, so it is proposed [snip bullshit]
> Alan Folmsbee, MSEE
>
> 12 page .pdf file with 43 equations

Again a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering!

You may not guess how many MSEE have the kind of silly ideas you do
have!

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

#390988

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 7:20:49 AM UTC-10, Python wrote:
> Le 25/08/2016 à 19:08, Alan Folmsbee a écrit :
> > 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.
> 
> I do.
> 
> > "Gravity Volume Theory"
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> > Gravity is a volume effect, so it is proposed [snip bullshit]
> > Alan Folmsbee, MSEE
> >
> > 12 page .pdf file with 43 equations
> 
> Again a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering!
> 
> You may not guess how many MSEE have the kind of silly ideas you do
> have!

Hello Python, You are invited to send an email to me at

folmsbee at protonmail dot ch

using your real name and then you can get the 12 page paper on physics. Your comments would be valuable before I edit the final version.

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

#390898

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:08:19 AM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>snip<

Another day, another delusional idiot. 

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

#391047

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 7:29:37 AM UTC-10, Dono, wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:08:19 AM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> >snip<
> 
> Another day, another delusional idiot.

Hello Dono, You are invited to write an email to me at

folmsbee at protonmail dot ch

If you use your real name, then I can arrange to send you the 12 page paper on gravity volume theory.

Thank you for reading.

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

#391055

W dniu sobota, 27 sierpnia 2016 16:34:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Alan Folmsbee napisał:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 7:29:37 AM UTC-10, Dono, wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:08:19 AM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > >snip<
> > 
> > Another day, another delusional idiot.
> 
> Hello Dono, You are invited to write an email to me at
> 
> folmsbee at protonmail dot ch
> 
> If you use your real name, then I can arrange to send you the 12 page paper on gravity volume theory.
> 
> Thank you for reading.

Do not ask imbeciles for an assistance in your work.

BTW.
The forum is dominated by idiots, imbeciles,
or at least by preprogramed destructors of any logics
and the real progress in the knowledge.

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

#390900

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

Peer review is something that is done by the journal post-submission and 
pre-publication. It is not something that is solicited by the author, it 
is something solicited by the editorial staff of the journal.

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.


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

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

#390930

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:50:28 AM UTC-10, 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? Submitting to a group with 
> masters degrees in a different discipline than yours is not really a 
> solicitation from peers.
> 
> Peer review is something that is done by the journal post-submission and 
> pre-publication. It is not something that is solicited by the author, it 
> is something solicited by the editorial staff of the journal.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Here is my email address for people who want to volunteer to comment on the paper before it is submitted. folmsbee at protonmail dot ch

Odd Bodkin: you are invited to send an email using your real name. All my peers have names. I will not advertise your alias and name together. Trust me and protonmail to be safer than gmail.

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

#391035

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.

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

#391614

On 8/27/2016 2:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 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.)

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?

>
>> 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.

How so? The author submits a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. 
*Post-submission*, the editorial staff sends the paper to peers that 
they commission to review the paper. The author has no role in that 
selection.

>
>> 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.

But in the present context (see quoted from OP), he intends to submit to 
a scientific journal.

>
> 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>
>


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

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

#391618

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 3:38:36 AM UTC-10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/27/2016 2:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > 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.)
> 
> 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?
> 
> >
> >> 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.
> 
> How so? The author submits a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. 
> *Post-submission*, the editorial staff sends the paper to peers that 
> they commission to review the paper. The author has no role in that 
> selection.
> 
> >
> >> 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.
> 
> But in the present context (see quoted from OP), he intends to submit to 
> a scientific journal.
> 
> >
> > 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>
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Hello Mr. Bodkin, I have been communicating with several reviewers who are my peers or who have degrees more advanced than mine. Their peer reviews have been helpful, providing links to papers about physics. Your legal advice in opposition to my request for peers to contact me has not deflected their interest. Your attempt to administer restrictions on thought and to justify a halt to the advance of science is not appropriate. Lawyers like you fail to silence intellectuals, unless you use guns and prisons to scare us.

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

#391619

Alan Folmsbee wrote:

Hello Mr. Bodkin, I have been communicating with several reviewers who are my peers or who have degrees more advanced than mine. Their peer reviews have been helpful, providing links to papers about physics. Your legal advice in opposition to my request for peers to contact me has not deflected their interest. Your attempt to administer restrictions on thought and to justify a halt to the advance of science is not appropriate. Lawyers like you fail to silence intellectuals, unless you use guns and prisons to scare us. 

Be Careful or you will be labeled as a Conspiracy Theorist claiming a concerted effort to Suppress the Truth by main stream science. 

You will be classified with the global warming deniers. 

As Juan Carlos Baez is the leader of the efforts to Ostracize the Global Warming Deniers, Take heed. 

Dark matter & Dark Energy are some how Valid & scientific. 

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

#391629

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 11:15:43 AM UTC-5, David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote:
> Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> 
> Hello Mr. Bodkin, I have been communicating with several reviewers who are my peers or who have degrees more advanced than mine. Their peer reviews have been helpful, providing links to papers about physics. Your legal advice in opposition to my request for peers to contact me has not deflected their interest. Your attempt to administer restrictions on thought and to justify a halt to the advance of science is not appropriate. Lawyers like you fail to silence intellectuals, unless you use guns and prisons to scare us. 
> 
> Be Careful or you will be labeled as a Conspiracy Theorist claiming a concerted effort to Suppress the Truth by main stream science. 
> 
> You will be classified with the global warming deniers. 
> 
> As Juan Carlos Baez is the leader of the efforts to Ostracize the Global Warming Deniers, Take heed. 
> 
> Dark matter & Dark Energy are some how Valid & scientific.

https://goo.gl/photos/ZpQF2Yr7a3oaGhxE7

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

#391660

On 9/6/2016 11:03 AM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> Hello Mr. Bodkin, I have been communicating with several reviewers who are my peers
> or who have degrees more advanced than mine. Their peer reviews have been helpful,
> providing links to papers about physics. Your legal advice in opposition to my request
> for peers to contact me has not deflected their interest.

I don't think I offered you any legal advice.
I questioned whether this is a task that you as an author would 
undertake or whether that would be the task of the editorial staff of 
the journal you plan to submit to.

> Your attempt to administer restrictions on thought and to justify a halt to the advance
> of science is not appropriate. Lawyers like you fail to silence intellectuals, unless
> you use guns and prisons to scare us.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm certainly not trying to restrict your thoughts. 
I'm questioning the wisdom of your approach to getting attention to your 
work, especially since it does nothing really to support your purported 
claim to submit for publication. To which publication do you intend to 
submit? Surely just asking you this question is not suppressing your 
thoughts, is it?

I have absolutely no interest in invoking guns or prisons with regard to 
you. How on earth did you jump to the conclusion that I would be?


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

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

#391664

On 9/6/2016 6:08 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/6/2016 11:03 AM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>> Hello Mr. Bodkin, I have been communicating with several reviewers who
>> are my peers
>> or who have degrees more advanced than mine. Their peer reviews have
>> been helpful,
>> providing links to papers about physics. Your legal advice in
>> opposition to my request
>> for peers to contact me has not deflected their interest.
>
> I don't think I offered you any legal advice.
> I questioned whether this is a task that you as an author would
> undertake or whether that would be the task of the editorial staff of
> the journal you plan to submit to.
>
>> Your attempt to administer restrictions on thought and to justify a
>> halt to the advance
>> of science is not appropriate. Lawyers like you fail to silence
>> intellectuals, unless
>> you use guns and prisons to scare us.
>
> I'm not a lawyer. I'm certainly not trying to restrict your thoughts.
> I'm questioning the wisdom of your approach to getting attention to your
> work, especially since it does nothing really to support your purported
> claim to submit for publication. To which publication do you intend to
> submit? Surely just asking you this question is not suppressing your
> thoughts, is it?
>
> I have absolutely no interest in invoking guns or prisons with regard to
> you. How on earth did you jump to the conclusion that I would be?

Was an easy jump for him, Boinker. You've long favored censorship of all 
ideas that are not "approved" and it goes without saying that 
implementation of censorship always ultimately involves passing laws 
which are enforced with guns and prisons. This much is obvious.

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

#391626

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 8/27/2016 2:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 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.)
> 
> 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. 

>>> 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.
> 
> 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.

> The author submits a paper to a peer-reviewed journal.
> *Post-submission*, the editorial staff sends the paper to peers that
> they commission to review the paper. The author has no role in that
> selection.

AISB, you have a very narrow understanding of the term “peer review”.

>>> 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.
> 
> 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).  A scientific newsgroup can serve as an 
informal commission for peer review as their are undoubtedly scientists 
working in the pertaining field subscribed to it.

Before scientific journals existed, and even when they already existed, 
scientists would send their work to their peers who were working in the same 
field and in related fields, they would correspond in letters with them, to 
have their work and ideas checked and commented on.  Since we are in 
sci.physics.relativity, take Einstein’s well-documented correspondences as 
an example.

I suggest you learn about the origins and types of “peer review” to gain a 
better understanding of the subject.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#391661

On 9/6/2016 12:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 8/27/2016 2:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> 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.)
>>
>> 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?

>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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. I was 
questioning HIS assertion that he was in fact submitting it to his peers 
for review. By his OWN definition, he considers a peer to be someone 
with the same degree he has, which is a masters in electrical 
engineering. And yet he is coming here to ask for comments. It would be 
like a plumber showing up in a society for lawyers asking for his peers 
to review a legal brief; peers would be plumbers, and he would be 
unlikely to find plumbers in a society for lawyers.

>
>> The author submits a paper to a peer-reviewed journal.
>> *Post-submission*, the editorial staff sends the paper to peers that
>> they commission to review the paper. The author has no role in that
>> selection.
>
> AISB, you have a very narrow understanding of the term “peer review”.

What do you think "peer review" means in the context of a peer-reviewed 
journal?

>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

Nor would that solicitation be relevant at all for the peer-reviewed 
journal, which has its OWN peer review process.

It is fine to seek comments from any group of people he chooses. He 
could choose a group of wedding flower girls and ring bearers if it 
suits him. This would not be a peer review.

>  A scientific newsgroup can serve as an
> informal commission for peer review as their are undoubtedly scientists
> working in the pertaining field subscribed to it.
>
> Before scientific journals existed, and even when they already existed,
> scientists would send their work to their peers who were working in the same
> field and in related fields,

"Working in the same field and in related fields". Notice the meaning of 
"peer" there. Notice that his having a masters in electrical engineering 
does not mean that members of a newsgroup about physics are therefore 
"working in the same field and in related fields". Moreover, those that 
the physics journal would commission for peer review of his submission 
would ALSO not be "working in the same field and in related fields".

> they would correspond in letters with them, to
> have their work and ideas checked and commented on.  Since we are in
> sci.physics.relativity, take Einstein’s well-documented correspondences as
> an example.
>
> I suggest you learn about the origins and types of “peer review” to gain a
> better understanding of the subject.
>


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

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

#391665

On 9/6/2016 6:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/6/2016 12:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/27/2016 2:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> 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.)
>>>
>>> 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?
>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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. I was
> questioning HIS assertion that he was in fact submitting it to his peers
> for review. By his OWN definition, he considers a peer to be someone
> with the same degree he has, which is a masters in electrical
> engineering. And yet he is coming here to ask for comments. It would be
> like a plumber showing up in a society for lawyers asking for his peers
> to review a legal brief; peers would be plumbers, and he would be
> unlikely to find plumbers in a society for lawyers.
>
>>
>>> The author submits a paper to a peer-reviewed journal.
>>> *Post-submission*, the editorial staff sends the paper to peers that
>>> they commission to review the paper. The author has no role in that
>>> selection.
>>
>> AISB, you have a very narrow understanding of the term “peer review”.
>
> What do you think "peer review" means in the context of a peer-reviewed
> journal?
>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Nor would that solicitation be relevant at all for the peer-reviewed
> journal, which has its OWN peer review process.
>
> It is fine to seek comments from any group of people he chooses. He
> could choose a group of wedding flower girls and ring bearers if it
> suits him. This would not be a peer review.
>
>>  A scientific newsgroup can serve as an
>> informal commission for peer review as their are undoubtedly scientists
>> working in the pertaining field subscribed to it.
>>
>> Before scientific journals existed, and even when they already existed,
>> scientists would send their work to their peers who were working in
>> the same
>> field and in related fields,
>
> "Working in the same field and in related fields". Notice the meaning of
> "peer" there. Notice that his having a masters in electrical engineering
> does not mean that members of a newsgroup about physics are therefore
> "working in the same field and in related fields". Moreover, those that
> the physics journal would commission for peer review of his submission
> would ALSO not be "working in the same field and in related fields".

Boinker, just explain it him in plain English. "peer review" has nothing 
to do with peers. It's all a mechanism whereby publishers can insure 
that all published papers follow the establishment party line. It's a 
way to weed out those which challenge establishment "accepted" thought. 
This is why publication is all up to journal editors and publishers who 
try to put a fair face in it by choosing their pals for reviews and to 
do the censorship. That way the editors and publishers can cover their 
own asses and insist that THEY didn't censor the work "other scientists" 
did (unless of course it's an emergency and the editors are forced to 
perform the censorship themselves).

As for working scientists in newsgroups? As for THIS newsgroup I can 
assure everybody that *I* am the closest thing to a working scientist 
here and I'm widely regarded as a "kook" among the troglodytes who 
inhabit this place. And I actually have performed "peer review" for 
papers so I know all about how to censor new ideas to insure that 
established views are not challenged.

Anyway, no electrical engineer is ever going to get a paper published in 
any physics journal. That is a given. Oh ya!

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

#391688

On 9/6/2016 6:38 PM, benj wrote:
> Boinker, just explain it him in plain English. "peer review" has nothing
> to do with peers. It's all a mechanism whereby publishers can insure
> that all published papers follow the establishment party line. It's a
> way to weed out those which challenge establishment "accepted" thought.
> This is why publication is all up to journal editors and publishers who
> try to put a fair face in it by choosing their pals for reviews and to
> do the censorship. That way the editors and publishers can cover their
> own asses and insist that THEY didn't censor the work "other scientists"
> did (unless of course it's an emergency and the editors are forced to
> perform the censorship themselves).

It is certainly true that editors exert editorial control over what gets 
published in an editorially-vetted journal. That's their job. And that's 
as it should be.

There are other venues that publish absolutely every submission given to 
them. I understand that you believe ALL publications should be that way, 
but the market says otherwise.

>
> As for working scientists in newsgroups? As for THIS newsgroup I can
> assure everybody that *I* am the closest thing to a working scientist
> here and I'm widely regarded as a "kook" among the troglodytes who
> inhabit this place. And I actually have performed "peer review" for
> papers so I know all about how to censor new ideas to insure that
> established views are not challenged.
>
> Anyway, no electrical engineer is ever going to get a paper published in
> any physics journal. That is a given. Oh ya!


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

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

#391723

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.

>>>> […] 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>

>>>> 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, and that 
it were inappropriate to post it here.

*And that is where you are wrong.*

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web