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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391723

Re: Request for Peer Review

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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