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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391726

Re: Request for Peer Review

Show all headers | View raw

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

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