Peer-Review Under Review
in [Relativity]
|
From: paparios on 5 Apr 2010 13:16 On 5 abr, 11:52, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 06:42:54 -0700: > > > > > On 2 abr, 11:27, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> Wendy Warr, an associate editor for ACS, gave a bleak and blistering > >> critique on the current state of peer-review at the recent ACS > >> National. > > >> Problems with Peer-Review: > > >> * It can delay publications for months. * An editor can make or > >> break a paper by sending it to the author's > >> friends or competitors. > >> * Historically biased against women, single authors, etc... * It > >> costs reviewers time (she gave a statistic that 41% of > >> reviewers would like to be paid). > >> * Reviewers tend to favor conservative science and not far-out new > >> ideas. > >> * Difficult finding qualified reviewers for multidisciplinary work.. > >> * Basing the quality of a paper on 2 reviewers, basically just > >> 2-data points, is statistically insignificant. > >> * As more papers are being submitted the burden for reviewers is > >> increasing. > > > I publish and review papers and my opinion is that the peer review > > system is the only working system. > > And what about the suggestions done for improve it? > Well, the fact is that in most cases journal indexing, such as ISI, has a very relevant part on the academic career of researchers. The impact factor of a journal, while created to guide libraries on their journal purchases, is now taken as a very good measure of the quality of the researcher and, so, it strongly determines that researcher's future. So changing any part of the actual peer review process, would severely impact all those academic processes. My opinion is that it will never happen. Miguel Rios
From: Ken S. Tucker on 5 Apr 2010 15:22 On Apr 4, 6:26 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > eric gisse wrote on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 15:40:25 -0700: > > > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > > [...] > > And here you snipped the link to the useful and very informative cited > by Harald for... > > >> For peer review, the author(s) should have a critical assessment by 2 > >> others (consultants/co-authors) that can act as advisors and > >> supporters, I find solitary authors emotionally involved with their > >> achievements, > > > Which neatly explains why you can't digest honest assessments of your > > spew. > > ... submit your usual ad hominem. > > You alone are doing evident on what you are interested :-D > > >> so the temper of a team is reasonable. Regards > >> Ken S. Tucker Speaking for myself, I think the peer review is Journal dependant. Some are useful, others are near brain dead. Mostly I find the criticsm to be excellent. Also I think it's important to produce a useful conclusion that can advance our technology, apart from mathematicians, who own the universe, and don't report to anyone. Physics is math applied to science, so it has higher standards than pure math, subject to techlogics. I prefer the test of science, so I yield to experiment. -In that way I agreed 'frame dragging, is null. -g-waves (ligo) wiil null, -Black holes are fantasy. -Big Bang is hoay (hoxy-poxy). And finally, current science is NUTZ, and lacks discipline. It's like a 'ponzi' scheme, circular masturbation, in US. Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: eric gisse on 5 Apr 2010 18:55 Ken S. Tucker wrote: [...] > I prefer the test of science, so I yield to experiment. > > -In that way I agreed 'frame dragging, is null. Repeated experiment (LAGEOS, GP-B, lunar ranging) proves you wrong. > -g-waves (ligo) wiil null, Binary pulsar systems prove you wrong. > -Black holes are fantasy. Sgr. A* proves you wrong. > -Big Bang is hoay (hoxy-poxy). The CMB proves you wrong. > > And finally, current science is NUTZ, and lacks discipline. > It's like a 'ponzi' scheme, circular masturbation, in US. > Regards > Ken S. Tucker
From: BURT on 5 Apr 2010 18:58 On Apr 5, 3:55 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > [...] > > > I prefer the test of science, so I yield to experiment. > > > -In that way I agreed 'frame dragging, is null. > > Repeated experiment (LAGEOS, GP-B, lunar ranging) proves you wrong. > > > -g-waves (ligo) wiil null, > > Binary pulsar systems prove you wrong. > > > -Black holes are fantasy. > > Sgr. A* proves you wrong. > > > -Big Bang is hoay (hoxy-poxy). > > The CMB proves you wrong. > > > > > > > And finally, current science is NUTZ, and lacks discipline. > > It's like a 'ponzi' scheme, circular masturbation, in US. > > Regards > > Ken S. Tucker- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - CMB electromagnetism is expanding with space redshifting it everwhere. Mitch Raemsch
From: Ken S. Tucker on 5 Apr 2010 23:18
On Apr 5, 3:58 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 3:55 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > > [...] > > > > I prefer the test of science, so I yield to experiment. > > > > -In that way I agreed 'frame dragging, is null. > > > Repeated experiment (LAGEOS, GP-B, lunar ranging) proves you wrong. > > > > -g-waves (ligo) wiil null, > > > Binary pulsar systems prove you wrong. > > > > -Black holes are fantasy. > > > Sgr. A* proves you wrong. > > > > -Big Bang is hoay (hoxy-poxy). > > > The CMB proves you wrong. > > > > And finally, current science is NUTZ, and lacks discipline. > > > It's like a 'ponzi' scheme, circular masturbation, in US. > > > Regards > > > Ken S. Tucker- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > CMB electromagnetism is expanding with space redshifting it everwhere. > Mitch Raemsch Cosmology is like religion, a red tint becomes a Big Bang. It makes no difference to technology and engineering that is science's first purpose to improve those. One can argue and tickle weeny effects out of measurements, that are a curiosity, but difficult to import into mainstream manufacturing applications. Taxpayers should NOT be required to support the curiousity of others with a govmonk gun to their heads. Nor should taxpayers support - so called - higher education to a bunch of retarded nerds to try to prove all idiots can become genius's. When offered a position to teach, I looked about at the students I'd need to stuff knowledge into, (many like Greese), and declined, I'd have to be seriously desperate for a paycheck to become a university prof, that's why I admire those who do that, one really needs a dedication, (did a little bit in electronics). What is 'peer review' for? Regards Ken S. Tucker |