Peer-Review Under Review
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 6 Apr 2010 00:46 Ken S. Tucker wrote: > 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 Delusions of adequacy. Nobody would ever want you to be a professor. I note that you respond to the white noise generator's bullshit post but couldn't even figure out how to reply to the evidence that - once again - proves your wild assed guesses wrong. Keep being wrong and unembarrassed Ken, it just validates what I say about you.
From: Ken S. Tucker on 6 Apr 2010 01:43 On Apr 5, 9:46 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > 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 > > Delusions of adequacy. Nobody would ever want you to be a professor. Don't worry, Eric is 50 IQ points short of qualifying, even his mommy couldn't pay me enuf to teach him. I'm already a prof, got about 6 Ph.d's, they're in the drawer, that's just paper work, what counts is being able to improve the ability of humans to make decisions, I happilly work for free for those guys, as my mentors did for me. I never had to pay for so-called higher education, I did it out of respect, and I'm provided swanky appartments just because I show up, to clarify complex technology. I love elevating details into clarity, so guys who are interested can leave with an improved skill set + confidence, and in addition it provides positive experience. Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: eric gisse on 6 Apr 2010 05:29 Ken S. Tucker wrote: > On Apr 5, 9:46 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: >> > 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 >> >> Delusions of adequacy. Nobody would ever want you to be a professor. > > Don't worry, Eric is 50 IQ points short of qualifying, even his > mommy couldn't pay me enuf to teach him. > I'm already a prof, got about 6 Ph.d's, they're in the drawer, > that's just paper work, what counts is being able to improve > the ability of humans to make decisions, I happilly work for > free for those guys, as my mentors did for me. > I never had to pay for so-called higher education, I did it out > of respect, and I'm provided swanky appartments just because I > show up, to clarify complex technology. > I love elevating details into clarity, so guys who are interested > can leave with an improved skill set + confidence, and in addition > it provides positive experience. > Regards > Ken S. Tucker Unskilled and unaware of it.
From: Ken S. Tucker on 6 Apr 2010 15:29 On Apr 6, 2:29 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > On Apr 5, 9:46 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: > >> > 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 > > >> Delusions of adequacy. Nobody would ever want you to be a professor. > > > Don't worry, Eric is 50 IQ points short of qualifying, even his > > mommy couldn't pay me enuf to teach him. > > I'm already a prof, got about 6 Ph.d's, they're in the drawer, > > that's just paper work, what counts is being able to improve > > the ability of humans to make decisions, I happilly work for > > free for those guys, as my mentors did for me. > > I never had to pay for so-called higher education, I did it out > > of respect, and I'm provided swanky appartments just because I > > show up, to clarify complex technology. > > I love elevating details into clarity, so guys who are interested > > can leave with an improved skill set + confidence, and in addition > > it provides positive experience. > > Regards > > Ken S. Tucker > > Unskilled and unaware of it. One day wife said go out and make 'saw dust' and as it turned out we used the left over wood to make a cottage, Hey guys, check this out, it's a hobby, http://www.flickr.com/photos/dynamics/page2/ By coincidence, the left over wood made a nice cabinet, the roof squared to 1/100 th of an inch, I kid you not. I figured for 1". We laff at twinks like Gisse, the poor SOB might build a paper airplane and poke one of his eyes out. Gisse's ultimate doom, he becomes a real estate agent, a low down dishonest motor mouth, it's a good fit. Ken
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 6 Apr 2010 16:20
paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 10:16:43 -0700: > 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. Maybe, but I was really asking for your opinion about the suggestions done for improving it. Another day, we could talk about ways to implement them into certain academic rigid structures. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |