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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391661

Re: Request for Peer Review

Show all headers | View raw

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

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