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

Maybe, or maybe he is right and most of the scientist just want to be 
sited on their comfortable majority accepted current believes and not 
adventuring on grounds not approved by the grand majority. I've again 
watched the videos I posted and make perfect sense, explaining how life 
can be supported on extreme conditions and how things developed from one 
  logical step to another, in theory at least his explanation is 
flawless IMHO.

Post a reply to this message

On 8-3-2009 18:19, Darren New wrote:
> 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.

I know a couple of these situations. It really happens more than one 
would hope. Often the background is that someone influential has 
invested a lot of time in a theory and that now much of his lab depends 
on grands to look into it. Such a person will sometimes do her/his 
utmost to prevent other theories and counter data to get published. 
Eventually the other measurements and theories almost always do get 
published but there may be a delay of several years and they won't get 
into influenced journals at first. Both are a threat to the financial 
situation of the group.

Something similar is happening with the work of my PhD student. His work 
is in modelling the effect of high frequency interference on 
electronics. Here we have the problem that most people in the field are 
measuring interference, we are modelling it. Now for the second time an 
editor has to make a decision to overrule a reviewer that insists that 
we measure up to at least 1 GHz, because that is what is specified in 
the measurement regulations. We on the other hand have only measured up 
to 100 MHz because that was enough to show that the measurements matched 
our equations. (Technically we can not measure higher without special 
equipment and even then those measurements would be subject to doubt 
anyway). Some people are not able to distance themselves from their 
daily routine and really try to understand what somebody else is 
writing. It delays the process a lot and it is not nice to have to put 
pressure on the editors to force a decision.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I know a couple of these situations. It really happens more than one 
> would hope. Often the background is that someone influential has 
> invested a lot of time in a theory and that now much of his lab depends 
> on grands to look into it. Such a person will sometimes do her/his 
> utmost to prevent other theories and counter data to get published. 

It saddens me to realize I believe that people would do this maliciously, 
rather than just being stubborn or close-minded. Sigh.

-- 
   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

On 8-3-2009 21:20, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I know a couple of these situations. It really happens more than one 
>> would hope. Often the background is that someone influential has 
>> invested a lot of time in a theory and that now much of his lab 
>> depends on grands to look into it. Such a person will sometimes do 
>> her/his utmost to prevent other theories and counter data to get 
>> published. 
> 
> It saddens me to realize I believe that people would do this 
> maliciously, rather than just being stubborn or close-minded. Sigh.
> 
Of course you can not prove that, but there are a few cases that I am 
pretty sure that is what happens. And that is only in those areas that 
are closely related to my work.

BTW once I was contemplating changing my field from cardiology to 
foundations of computer science (not so much a step as it seems). My 
main interests were (and are) however in things that could be improved 
in Dijkstra's work (I think it may be known in this group that I am a 
fan of his work ;) ). The message of people knowledgeable in that field 
was simple: Don't do it, you won't get any papers published when you 
disagree with Dijkstra.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> It saddens me to realize I believe that people would do this
> maliciously, rather than just being stubborn or close-minded. Sigh.

	Ugh. Not that rare, but depends on the discipline, and subdiscipline. I
highly suspect it is common in physics and engineering, and the more
grant money that is involved, the more common the behavior. My math
friend was surprised to hear these stories, and I suspect it's because
math faculty rarely get grants, and aren't expected to.***

	This is just based on anecdotal observations, though.

	Here's a common one that happened to me and that same colleague
independently. Submit a paper with the title along the lines of
"Investigating the effects of A on device X". The referee responds
saying the paper is poor because it doesn't investigate the effects of B
on X. We then have to send the editor a response saying "The paper is a
study of A on X, not of B on X" at which point he finds another referee.

	It hurt me in particular because the second referee then found another
(slightly more intelligent) complaint, and we weren't allowed to respond
because the journal had a 2 strike rule. I always wondered if the first
referee did it intentionally just so that we'd waste one opportunity to
respond.

	Then even more common (although not with my papers). Referee responds
with "author did not address phenomenon B", when the author clearly did
on page n. It's quite clear from some of the comments that the referee
did not read the paper properly.

	But kind of pointless worrying about it. I'm not in a position to make
change - don't know if I'll ever be. My take is that the academic world
w.r.t. journals is mostly OK and egalitarian, but experience has shown
that if people want to abuse it, there's little in the infrastructure to
prevent it, or even to detect it when it has happened.

	The exceptions are usually quite remarkable: Either politics is
involved (as in domestic or international - not science), or the person
at fault was trying to get away with really wild claims.

	Also, to be realistic, the fault lies not just with the individuals who
play these games, but at the institutional levels. Take away the
motives, and I think a lot of these will go away.

*** One thing I like about math papers. The rule is that author names
are listed in alphabetical order. So none of those "first author" issues.

-- 
OK, so what's the speed of dark?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On 9-3-2009 6:07, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> It saddens me to realize I believe that people would do this
>> maliciously, rather than just being stubborn or close-minded. Sigh.
> 
> 	Ugh. Not that rare, but depends on the discipline, and subdiscipline. I
> highly suspect it is common in physics and engineering, and the more
> grant money that is involved, the more common the behavior.

Indeed the examples that I know of are in cardiology.

> My math
> friend was surprised to hear these stories, and I suspect it's because
> math faculty rarely get grants, and aren't expected to.***
> 
> 	This is just based on anecdotal observations, though.
> 
> 	Here's a common one that happened to me and that same colleague
> independently. Submit a paper with the title along the lines of
> "Investigating the effects of A on device X". The referee responds
> saying the paper is poor because it doesn't investigate the effects of B
> on X. We then have to send the editor a response saying "The paper is a
> study of A on X, not of B on X" at which point he finds another referee.
> 
> 	It hurt me in particular because the second referee then found another
> (slightly more intelligent) complaint, and we weren't allowed to respond
> because the journal had a 2 strike rule. I always wondered if the first
> referee did it intentionally just so that we'd waste one opportunity to
> respond.

In the journals that I mentioned you can appeal to the editor if you can 
show that a referee did not do its job. This should of course be the 
exception. With that particular PhD project we have two out of two 
(actually 3 out of two as the previous editor rejected the paper on 
dubious grounds and we appealed to the new editor). That does not feel good.

Post a reply to this message

> 
> what about simply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life 



Logic - Part 1 (logic and science)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_-pdLZPEAo&feature=related

Origin of Life 2 -- The Simple Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gOP3Erie-Q&feature=related

Origin of Life 3 -- Science & Creation Myths
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i25UJG1S578&feature=channel

Post a reply to this message

On 10-3-2009 11:54, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>
>> what about simply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic - Part 1 (logic and science)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_-pdLZPEAo&feature=related
> 
> Origin of Life 2 -- The Simple Life
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gOP3Erie-Q&feature=related
> 
> Origin of Life 3 -- Science & Creation Myths
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i25UJG1S578&feature=channel

So, another well meaning amateur. Less offensive, slightly better 
informed, but still missing some subtle points. Some hints of 'I can not 
imagine how that happens, so it is impossible' sort of view. Why don't 
you consult a group of actually knowledgeable people? They should not be 
less hard to find than these youtube amateurs, I would hope.

I did not try hard myself. I checked TED but there seems to be no talk 
really about the origins of life or abiogenesis. That is a pity because 
on TED there are good talks by people in the forefront of their fields. 
Which gives interesting insights and guaranteed a few ideas that will 
turn out to be totally wrong. As someone interested in science that is 
fantastic and the best you can get. (As soon as someone is telling the 
truth and nothing but the truth, you know it is a phoney.)

Post a reply to this message

LOL, OK...

Post a reply to this message