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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391725

Re: Request for Peer Review

Show all headers | View raw

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

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