Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	For a while, the paper was rejected purely because it didn't account
> for B. The referees wanted to know how his theory ties in with B (it
> doesn't - he was pointing out the results could be explained without
> resorting to B altogether).

Well, that would seem to be the answer, then. :-) I guess scientists can be 
somewhat blind like everyone else. What he needed to answer was "this is how 
I account for the measurements that seem to imply B is necessary."  If it 
wasn't clear enough, then he needed to clarify and resubmit, I guess. Sounds 
like the system worked to me.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message