06-29-2006, 07:36 PM
hi,
The practice is a bit different. If what you are proposing is not what the mainstream workers in the field think, then they assign their ignorance of what you've done to *your* having failed to understand the problem. And if they don't recognize who you are, they will spend little time before making some vague general remark ("Topic not well covered." was one of my favorites -- just how do you reply to that?) and recommending that the paper not be published. If they do recognize you, then it depends on the relationship. If, during the last conference you spent a few hours with the reviewer eating pizza, drinking beer and telling jokes, then you might even get a call saying something along the lines of "Pete, your latest paper is a pile of manure, but there's just a glimmer that it might be useful if you'll change this and that, so I'm gonna recommend it be published with those changes." That will often lead to a dialog that gets something useful done (however, most journals use three to five reviewers, so the process isn't all that linear). On the other hand, if you spilled your coffee on his custom made silk Italian suit, then abandon all hope, find another journal and try again. And, yes, researchers can spot who the (supposedly anonymous) reviewers are just from the type and tone of their comments. Worst case scenario is when you and the reviewer are competing for the same pot of funding. Then the slightest nit is blown up to cold fusion proportions in an attempt to knock you out of the running for the bucks. If the funding was already awarded and you got it, then there's often a carry on effect that is partially retribution and partially setting you up not to get a follow on.
So, if what you want to contribute is outside (or, worse, opposed) to the mainstream, good luck. I know of one case where a person waited almost twenty years to defend and publish his Ph.D. dissertation because his school used the black ball system and he'd made a life long enemy of one of the members of his committee. When that member had the decency o die, my acquaintance finally published his (by then much enlarged) dissertation. Similar stories, usually just involving research papers, often appear in Science and Science News.
Max Planck was right, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ;)
--Pete
Quote:A fun exercise when comparing the he said / she saids amongst various individuals making public statements on global warming: research how many articles each one has published in a peer reviewed journal recently. The peer review process forces a much higher standard of intellectual integrity to get published than say submitting an op-ed piece to the Washington post (or any other news media outlet).Good point. However, lest someone unfamiliar with the peer review process and archival journals get the wrong impression, even that process is gravely flawed. Peer review is exactly that; your paper is sent to a number of your 'peers' taken from a list maintained by the journal you submitted it to. Usually, all information identifying you and your organization is removed (as if your true peers couldn't figure out who you were just from the contents and style of the abstract :whistling:). The peers review the paper primarily for content, usually by asking for clarification or additional evidence. Many also review it for style, although that should be the editor's job. The reviewers also recommend whether or not the paper should be published. Once some middle ground of agreement has been reached, often after a few iterations of the process, you pay your publication fees and your paper is published. Or, at least, that's how it works in theory.
The practice is a bit different. If what you are proposing is not what the mainstream workers in the field think, then they assign their ignorance of what you've done to *your* having failed to understand the problem. And if they don't recognize who you are, they will spend little time before making some vague general remark ("Topic not well covered." was one of my favorites -- just how do you reply to that?) and recommending that the paper not be published. If they do recognize you, then it depends on the relationship. If, during the last conference you spent a few hours with the reviewer eating pizza, drinking beer and telling jokes, then you might even get a call saying something along the lines of "Pete, your latest paper is a pile of manure, but there's just a glimmer that it might be useful if you'll change this and that, so I'm gonna recommend it be published with those changes." That will often lead to a dialog that gets something useful done (however, most journals use three to five reviewers, so the process isn't all that linear). On the other hand, if you spilled your coffee on his custom made silk Italian suit, then abandon all hope, find another journal and try again. And, yes, researchers can spot who the (supposedly anonymous) reviewers are just from the type and tone of their comments. Worst case scenario is when you and the reviewer are competing for the same pot of funding. Then the slightest nit is blown up to cold fusion proportions in an attempt to knock you out of the running for the bucks. If the funding was already awarded and you got it, then there's often a carry on effect that is partially retribution and partially setting you up not to get a follow on.
So, if what you want to contribute is outside (or, worse, opposed) to the mainstream, good luck. I know of one case where a person waited almost twenty years to defend and publish his Ph.D. dissertation because his school used the black ball system and he'd made a life long enemy of one of the members of his committee. When that member had the decency o die, my acquaintance finally published his (by then much enlarged) dissertation. Similar stories, usually just involving research papers, often appear in Science and Science News.
Max Planck was right, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ;)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?