Peer-Review Under Review
in [Relativity]
|
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 8 Apr 2010 11:18 paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 06:11:45 -0700: > On 8 abr, 06:26, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:10:39 -0700: >> >> > >> >> You have now snipped the six references and most of the content of >> >> my message. >> >> > I do not know why you are always complaining about snipping, >> >> I will explain you in a simple way: *You are snipping for lying*. >> >> > Now you are resorting to insults. I am noticing the facts. > Nobody in these groups is obliged to reproduce anything of the previous > posts, especially when all of the previous 41 posts of the thread are, > again, available for everyone to read. Don't you understand that? You claimed that you "snip for brevity and saving of bandwidth". What amount of saving is done snipping a pair of lines? You insist on doing bold and false claims about references and texts that you snip. >> > while >> > knowing that all the 38 messages of this thread are stored and >> > available for everyone willing to read them. I only snip for brevity >> > and saving of bandwidth. Furthermore it is quite unorthodox to >> > reference a report which is hidden behind a pay wall like your [3] >> > and [6]. >> >> *Liar* >> >> > Again, more insults. Well now we have access to your report cited as > [6]. *Liar*. That open access report is available to everyone since 2008. But you insist on deleting the link for maintaining your lies. Neither [3] is behind a pay wall: *liar* [3] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20100401.html [6] http://canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20082.html > After reading it I do not find anything there that significantly > contributes to the subject. Lots of whining and the insulting use of the > "salami science" expression, The expression "salami science" was not invented from mine, but it reflect correctly the tendency. I am glad that Marye Anne Fox (editorial board of Chemical Reviews) agrees with me that the proliferation of the "salami science" is not driven by standards of quality but by "greed by some of commercial publishers" [3]. I am also glad how Linda Cooper has confirmed in a recent issue of Nature that "salami science" is deteriorating the communication of science [3]. > plus some useless suggestions (if you > insist that "Several suggestions from HARRY MORROW BROWN, LEE SMOLIN, > LINDA COOPER, and the present author for solving the problems are > included in the report", People at Chem. Rev., Nature, Physics Today, BMJ, and other journals found the suggestions useful. I am glad more and more journals are using some of those suggestions. [1] gives some journals with improved peer-review systems and [5] reports an hibrid peer-review system with rather parallelism to ideas presented in [6] and other places. > it would be better if you put all these > suggestions in a separate section of the report). Regarding reference > [3], it is nothing but some link to other pages wich contains useful information, other sientists point of view, suggestions... Moreover, you did the silly comment that [3] was "hidden behind a pay wall". *Liar*. > and, of course, again to > your own report [6]. You should include in that report that self > referencing is indeed an unsolved problem in published papers and make > some suggestion on that topic. I have given 6 references, which only one of them link to a paper from mine and the other indirectly links to a blog from Mitch reporting *both* the recent ACS talk by Warr and my report. You have done this accusation about self-referencing just *after snipping* the list of *six* references: [1] Alternative Peer Review: Quality Management for 21st Century Scholarship. www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/APR-1.ppt [2] The Peer-Review Process, Learned Publishing 15 no. 4 (October 2002): 247-258. [3] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20100401.html [4] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/ [5] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_improving.html [6] http://canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20082.html Because evidently you do not want to read any of them, including how [1,2,5,6] contradict your wrong points, your fake statistics, and your useless remarks. >> I have given 6 references. As you say they are archived in previous >> messages. I reintroduce them here > > And, again, I snip them because it is idiotic to repeat, post after > post, the same information. It is a well-known tactic in USENET to snip the arguments of the other before commenting on them. sometimes this is named a red-herring. It has been showed that you are lying about the references. You want to silly remarks about [6] or about [5], but only after snipping the links and what both really say. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: paparios on 8 Apr 2010 11:34 On 8 abr, 11:18, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 06:11:45 -0700: > > > > it would be better if you put all these > > suggestions in a separate section of the report). Regarding reference > > [3], it is nothing but some link to other pages > > wich contains useful information, other sientists point of view, suggestions... > Moreover, you did the silly comment that [3] was "hidden behind a pay wall". *Liar*. > > > and, of course, again to > > your own report [6]. You should include in that report that self > > referencing is indeed an unsolved problem in published papers and make > > some suggestion on that topic. > > I have given 6 references, which only one of them link to a paper from mine > and the other indirectly links to a blog from Mitch reporting *both* the > recent ACS talk by Warr and my report. > Well, you are a liar too!!! since link [3] also points to report [6], so you have two of your reference links pointing to the same report. That page is stored. Liar!!. Do you like to be submitted to your own medicine? Again, here they are the references posted by you, just in case nobody has seen them [1] Alternative Peer Review: Quality Management for 21st Century Scholarship. www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/APR-1.ppt [2] The Peer-Review Process, Learned Publishing 15 no. 4 (October 2002): 247-258. [3] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20.... [4] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/ [5] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_impr.... [6] http://canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/2008.... Miguel Rios
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 8 Apr 2010 15:15 paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:34:50 -0700: > On 8 abr, 11:18, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 06:11:45 -0700: >> I have given 6 references, which only one of them link to a paper from >> mine and the other indirectly links to a blog from Mitch reporting >> *both* the recent ACS talk by Warr and my report. >> >> > Well, you are a liar too!!! since link [3] also points to report [6], so > you have two of your reference links pointing to the same report. That > page is stored. Liar!!. That is just that I wrote above. I will explain to you again. I gave six references, one of the link to a paper from mine (reference [6]) and other reference (reference [3]) is a news which links to both [6] and the blog entry by Mitch. > Do you like to be submitted to your own medicine? You did the blatantly false claim that references [3] and [6] were "hidden behind a pay wall". *Liar*. And when the lie was noticed you had not the decency to say "Ooops, sorry". At contrary you wrote your pathetic: "Well now we have access to your report cited as" with very obvious intentions... > Again, here they are the references posted by you, just in case nobody > has seen them Don't worry, this time I will do the work for you :-D -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: paparios on 8 Apr 2010 15:30 On 8 abr, 15:15, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:34:50 -0700: > > > Well, you are a liar too!!! since link [3] also points to report [6], so > > you have two of your reference links pointing to the same report. That > > page is stored. Liar!!. > > That is just that I wrote above. I will explain to you again. I gave six > references, one of the link to a paper from mine (reference [6]) and > other reference (reference [3]) is a news which links to both [6] and the > blog entry by Mitch. > Liar!!! You are changing your version. You previously wrote "I have given 6 references, which only one of them link to a paper from mine and the other indirectly links to a blog from Mitch reporting *both* the recent ACS talk by Warr and my report." The truth is that in reference [3] you wrote "Other problems with peer-review include the demonstration that it is useless at detecting research fraud. A set of solutions to the problems of peer-review is given in the report Science in the 21st century: social, political, and economic issues.", where the last part is a link to that report. You see, this is a direct link and the Mitch character has nothing to do with it. Now explain why, when using your reference [3] link, it appears the following "The requested URL http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20 does not exist."?? ...Liar!!! Again here are the original link for people to see for themselves. I have copied the original web page of reference [3]. [1] Alternative Peer Review: Quality Management for 21st Century Scholarship. www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/APR-1.ppt [2] The Peer-Review Process, Learned Publishing 15 no. 4 (October 2002): 247-258. [3] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20.... [4] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/ [5] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_impr.... [6] http://canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/2008.... Miguel Rios
From: paparios on 8 Apr 2010 15:35
On 8 abr, 15:30, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Again here are the original link for people to see for themselves. I > have copied the original web page of reference [3]. > > [1] Alternative Peer Review: Quality Management for 21st Century > Scholarship.www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/APR-1.ppt > > [2] The Peer-Review Process, Learned Publishing 15 no. 4 > (October 2002): 247-258. > > [3]http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20.... > > [4]http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/ > > [5]http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_impr.... > > [6]http://canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/2008.... > > Miguel Rios Correction. The working canonical links are: [3] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html [6] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20082.html Miguel Rios |