Re: publishing problems (physics)
- From: "NotI" <notI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Sep 2006 09:51:09 -0700
Thus spake Malcolm <Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In article <1157277945.044342.107890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
NotI <notI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
That is very unhelpful but they are not obliged to produce specific
criticisms. Referees are asked to detail their criticisms but they
don't have to. Journals for which I review papers send me a form and
ask me to tick a box, e.g.:
Accept
Accept with minor revision
Accept with major revision
Reject and resubmit
Reject
More suitable for another Journal
This is perhaps expected for the less well funded journals.
I can then add detailed comments to the Editor (not shown to the
author) and for the author to see, but only if I wish, it isn't
compulsory, though I always do and I think the majority of reviewers
do.
It seems to me somewhat unreasonable if review does not mean giving a
proper scientific assessment, and if it is given a scientific
assessment
one ought to be able to write down what that is.
I am led to wonder whether the IOP is not in breach of dutyThe Royal Charter makes no mention of "peer review". What it says is
to
peer review on which the progress of science depends, and even of its
royal charter to ensure that process.
that "The object for which the Institute is hereby constituted is to
promote the advancement and dissemination of a knowledge of and
education in the science of physics, pure and applied". It then goes on
to list ways in which this is to be done, including by publications.
But that doesn't put any obligation on the Institute to publish
everything it is sent or even to promote every possible aspect of the
subject.
As you say, it is supposed to promote the advancement of physics.
Unification is the major scientific goal at the moment. Theoretical
physics can only be advanced through peer review and publication, so I
would think there is an implicit obligation to carry out that process
diligently.
The journal editor will have total authority to accept or reject
papers. He, and his board of editors, will also do their best to find
referees, but it appears they have been unsuccessful in this instance,
which is not necessarily their fault.
When the referees they did send the paper to responded with "unable to
report", do you know whether this was because they hadn't the time or
because they didn't feel competent to review your paper? Either is a
perfectly acceptable excuse, both of which I have used from time to
time.
I don't know. Either way one would think they would keep looking for a
reviewer.
And at least the Board member did give a reason for his recommendation
of rejection. He said that they were "too speculative" and that they
therefore weren't suitable for CQG.
Actually that is not a reason. First because it is a catchall for
rejecting unscientific papers, and second because CQG exists largely to
publish speculative papers on unification theories, notably string
theory and loop quantum gravity. In fact neither of those models has
any
empirical basis at all.
It has to be up to the editor and his board to decide whether a paper
is suitable. It wouldn't surprise me if the journal has a pretty high
rejection rate. The main biological/ecological journals I'm involved
with commonly reject 60% of papers received, sometimes more. The hurdle
that papers have to get over to achieve publication is therefore set
very high.
Indeed.
None of which is any consolation to you
Actually it is. I am probably overreacting.
and you have my commiserations.Thanks.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
.
- References:
- publishing problems (physics)
- From: NotI
- publishing problems (physics)
- Prev by Date: Re: Where have all the hurricanes gone?
- Next by Date: Re: Police forum for Howard
- Previous by thread: Re: publishing problems (physics)
- Next by thread: Re: publishing problems (physics)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
