View Full Version : A journal for unpublished research?
alejandro.rivero
Jun17-04, 04:19 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello,\n\nAfter some limited experience in both sides of the peer review system\nduring the last year, I have been thinking a bit about the problem to\ncommunicate new ideas. I would like to discuss how a journal of\nphysics could be oriented to work with half-baked or simply unfinished\nresearch.\n\nThe problem I see with current journals is that they have accepted\nthat communication is done via meetings, while journals simply archive\nand qualify the finished research. In this role, journal editors ask\nfor *finished* research and then they evaluate the quality according\njournal standards. In this way the published work is a closed folder:\npublish and move on. No communication between peers is promoted.\n\nJust lowering the bar to solve this problem does not work very well.\nThis was perhaps the point of view adopted by the "International\nJournal of Theoretical Physics" (2002 impact factor 0.655, Immediacy\nIndex 0.112), and perhaps recently by "Physics Letters A" (1.483,\n0.264). A close method was to believe on the existence of a separate\nresearch field, perhaps the spirit of "Foundations of Physics"\n(0.443, 0.086) and "Foundations of Physics Letters" (0.495, 0.000).\nThe immediacy index show that these approaches are not adequate if the\nauthors want to get some feedback; surely even a webpage does it\nbetter.\n\nA idea I am pondering about is to have a journal which publishes\njointly the article, the author cover letter -explaining what is new\nthere etc-, and at least two referee comments about the research. In\nthe cover letter the author could explain if he is keeping with this\nwork, or why he is unable to follow towards a standard finished\npublication. The referees, even staying anonymous, could make\nsuggestions for future progress. And even double blind can be provided\nin publication, if the author does not wish to risk a more\nprofessional career.\n\nPerhaps referees should be paid in order to get them to dedicate time\nto the report. I am unsure here.\n\nOf course the big worry about such journal is crackpot input. I can\nimagine two ways to stop this flow. On one side, license transfer\nshould let the journal to publish both the submitted -and rejected-\njob and the referee criticisms openly in a separate section, or\nperhaps in a website with limited right of reply. Secondly, from my\nnet experience, I\'d say that people on "circle quadrature" are\nbasically single-idea guys. Thus by requesting them to justify what is\nnew respect to previous presentations, they can be easily controlled.\nAm I being too optimistic?\n\nAlejandro Rivero\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello,
After some limited experience in both sides of the peer review system
during the last year, I have been thinking a bit about the problem to
communicate new ideas. I would like to discuss how a journal of
physics could be oriented to work with half-baked or simply unfinished
research.
The problem I see with current journals is that they have accepted
that communication is done via meetings, while journals simply archive
and qualify the finished research. In this role, journal editors ask
for *finished* research and then they evaluate the quality according
journal standards. In this way the published work is a closed folder:
publish and move on. No communication between peers is promoted.
Just lowering the bar to solve this problem does not work very well.
This was perhaps the point of view adopted by the "International
Journal of Theoretical Physics" (2002 impact factor .655, Immediacy
Index .112), and perhaps recently by "Physics Letters A" (1.483,
.264). A close method was to believe on the existence of a separate
research field, perhaps the spirit of "Foundations of Physics"
(0.443, .086) and "Foundations of Physics Letters" (0.495, .000).
The immediacy index show that these approaches are not adequate if the
authors want to get some feedback; surely even a webpage does it
better.
A idea I am pondering about is to have a journal which publishes
jointly the article, the author cover letter -explaining what is new
there etc-, and at least two referee comments about the research. In
the cover letter the author could explain if he is keeping with this
work, or why he is unable to follow towards a standard finished
publication. The referees, even staying anonymous, could make
suggestions for future progress. And even double blind can be provided
in publication, if the author does not wish to risk a more
professional career.
Perhaps referees should be paid in order to get them to dedicate time
to the report. I am unsure here.
Of course the big worry about such journal is crackpot input. I can
imagine two ways to stop this flow. On one side, license transfer
should let the journal to publish both the submitted -and rejected-
job and the referee criticisms openly in a separate section, or
perhaps in a website with limited right of reply. Secondly, from my
net experience, I'd say that people on "circle quadrature" are
basically single-idea guys. Thus by requesting them to justify what is
new respect to previous presentations, they can be easily controlled.
Am I being too optimistic?
Alejandro Rivero
Jonathan Thornburg
Jun17-04, 07:22 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nalejandro.rivero <rivero@sol.unizar.es> wrote:\n> The problem I see with current journals is that they have accepted\n> that communication is done via meetings\n\nAnd by the preprint archives. I look at gr-qc a lot more often than\nI look at PRD or PRL or CQG or any of the other "official" journals...\n\n> while journals simply archive\n> and qualify the finished research. In this role, journal editors ask\n> for *finished* research and then they evaluate the quality according\n> journal standards. In this way the published work is a closed folder:\n> publish and move on. No communication between peers is promoted.\n[[...]]\n\nMy experience has been much more favorable. In particular, physics\njournals certainly *will* publish papers on research which is not\nyet "finished".\n\nFor example, I\'ve just had a paper accepted by Classical and Quantum\nGravity describing some results from an ongoing research project of\nmine. This research is in no sense "finished", in fact it\'s still at\nan early stage, and both my preprint on gr-qc and the final published\npaper make that very clear. CQG\'s referees and editors raised no\nobjections on those grounds. (And they processed my paper very\nquickly, too -- only 20 days from article submission to provisonal\nacceptance.)\n\nciao,\n\n--\n-- "Jonathan Thornburg (remove -animal to reply)" <jthorn@aei.mpg-zebra.de>\nMax-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut),\nGolm, Germany, "Old Europe" http://www.aei.mpg.de/~jthorn/home.html\n"Washing one\'s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the\npowerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."\n-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>alejandro.rivero <rivero@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
> The problem I see with current journals is that they have accepted
> that communication is done via meetings
And by the preprint archives. I look at gr-qc a lot more often than
I look at PRD or PRL or CQG or any of the other "official" journals...
> while journals simply archive
> and qualify the finished research. In this role, journal editors ask
> for *finished* research and then they evaluate the quality according
> journal standards. In this way the published work is a closed folder:
> publish and move on. No communication between peers is promoted.
[[...]]
My experience has been much more favorable. In particular, physics
journals certainly *will* publish papers on research which is not
yet "finished".
For example, I've just had a paper accepted by Classical and Quantum
Gravity describing some results from an ongoing research project of
mine. This research is in no sense "finished", in fact it's still at
an early stage, and both my preprint on gr-qc and the final published
paper make that very clear. CQG's referees and editors raised no
objections on those grounds. (And they processed my paper very
quickly, too -- only 20 days from article submission to provisonal
acceptance.)
ciao,
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg (remove -animal to reply)" <jthorn@aei.mpg-zebra.de>
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut),
Golm, Germany, "Old Europe" http://www.aei.mpg.de/~jthorn/home.html
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
Uncle Al
Jun17-04, 01:13 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"alejandro.rivero" wrote:\n>\n> Hello,\n>\n> After some limited experience in both sides of the peer review system\n> during the last year, I have been thinking a bit about the problem to\n> communicate new ideas. I would like to discuss how a journal of\n> physics could be oriented to work with half-baked or simply unfinished\n> research.\n>\n> The problem I see with current journals is that they have accepted\n> that communication is done via meetings, while journals simply archive\n> and qualify the finished research. In this role, journal editors ask\n> for *finished* research and then they evaluate the quality according\n> journal standards. In this way the published work is a closed folder:\n> publish and move on. No communication between peers is promoted.\n>\n> Just lowering the bar to solve this problem does not work very well.\n> This was perhaps the point of view adopted by the "International\n> Journal of Theoretical Physics" (2002 impact factor 0.655, Immediacy\n> Index 0.112), and perhaps recently by "Physics Letters A" (1.483,\n> 0.264). A close method was to believe on the existence of a separate\n> research field, perhaps the spirit of "Foundations of Physics"\n> (0.443, 0.086) and "Foundations of Physics Letters" (0.495, 0.000).\n> The immediacy index show that these approaches are not adequate if the\n> authors want to get some feedback; surely even a webpage does it\n> better.\n>\n> A idea I am pondering about is to have a journal which publishes\n> jointly the article, the author cover letter -explaining what is new\n> there etc-, and at least two referee comments about the research. In\n> the cover letter the author could explain if he is keeping with this\n> work, or why he is unable to follow towards a standard finished\n> publication. The referees, even staying anonymous, could make\n> suggestions for future progress. And even double blind can be provided\n> in publication, if the author does not wish to risk a more\n> professional career.\n>\n> Perhaps referees should be paid in order to get them to dedicate time\n> to the report. I am unsure here.\n>\n> Of course the big worry about such journal is crackpot input. I can\n> imagine two ways to stop this flow. On one side, license transfer\n> should let the journal to publish both the submitted -and rejected-\n> job and the referee criticisms openly in a separate section, or\n> perhaps in a website with limited right of reply. Secondly, from my\n> net experience, I\'d say that people on "circle quadrature" are\n> basically single-idea guys. Thus by requesting them to justify what is\n> new respect to previous presentations, they can be easily controlled.\n> Am I being too optimistic?\n>\n> Alejandro Rivero\n\nThere is an abundance of web-published journals that accept papers of\ncreative/questionable content. Some have paper counterparts. One\nwould do better on many fronts to meet conservative journal\nstandards. Referees know stuff, both from credentials and from\nexperience. One viable alternative is to join the appropriate\nprofessional society and publically present at their annual meeting\n(talk, not a poster session). If you can get an academic group\ninterested, you are making progress. If the audience slays you in\nplace, you were horribly wrong. If nobody cares, then nobody cares.\nDo better.\n\nEven arXiv.org has some flat-out wowsers,\n\nhttp://arXiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Aquino_F/0/1/0/all/0/1\nhttp://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0205089\nTable at end of paper. That\'s ludicrous. Beneath contempt. Suppose\nyou could turn a dial and have a 60.5 kg lump exhibit 41 kg of\nbuoyancy instead, shooting up off the bench. Wouldn\'t you hold a\npress conference and thereafter expect a phone call from Sweden in the\nFall? NASA would emerge from a sudden puddle of steaming body fluids\ntossing bags of \\$100 bills your way. Large, heavy bags.\n\nA year or two ago a conservative academic group investigated the\nconversion of microwave radiation into gravitation via a\nsuperconductor. The math was acceptably there, the effect was\ndetectably not. Podkletnov has never been reproduced, ditto cold\nfusion. Physically spinning and spin polarized bodies do not\nmeasurably violate the Equivalence Principle. There is no Fifth Force\ndetected (Fishbach). Failure in a good cause is abundant.\n\nA heterodox proposal from *inside* the art generally has a long uphill\nclimb. A heterodox proposal from *outside* the art has a snowball\'s\nchance in Hell. This is not to say it cannot be done - the parity\nEotvos experiment is now in collaboration with an academic group. It\nonly required three years of work by two dozen folks overall, 900\nhours of donated supercomputer time, a public presentation at the APS\nnational meeting, and 20 minutes of intense private conversation\nthereafter.\n\nLearn how to give a good slide show, B&W transparencies or (fearsomely\nabused) PowerPoint,\n\nhttp://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/seminaronseminars.html\n\nDo it Suslick\'s way or be damned. Practice a few dozen times,\nspeaking out loud!, and check the clock. Transparencies don\'t crash,\nnor are they destroyed/confiscated by Homeland Severity. Don\'t stand\nin front of the projection screen, between it and the audience. Ys,\nit did happen - and it was an invited 40 minute talk.\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm\n(The parity Eotvos experiment is queued)\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"alejandro.rivero" wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> After some limited experience in both sides of the peer review system
> during the last year, I have been thinking a bit about the problem to
> communicate new ideas. I would like to discuss how a journal of
> physics could be oriented to work with half-baked or simply unfinished
> research.
>
> The problem I see with current journals is that they have accepted
> that communication is done via meetings, while journals simply archive
> and qualify the finished research. In this role, journal editors ask
> for *finished* research and then they evaluate the quality according
> journal standards. In this way the published work is a closed folder:
> publish and move on. No communication between peers is promoted.
>
> Just lowering the bar to solve this problem does not work very well.
> This was perhaps the point of view adopted by the "International
> Journal of Theoretical Physics" (2002 impact factor .655, Immediacy
> Index .112), and perhaps recently by "Physics Letters A" (1.483,
> .264). A close method was to believe on the existence of a separate
> research field, perhaps the spirit of "Foundations of Physics"
> (0.443, .086) and "Foundations of Physics Letters" (0.495, .000).
> The immediacy index show that these approaches are not adequate if the
> authors want to get some feedback; surely even a webpage does it
> better.
>
> A idea I am pondering about is to have a journal which publishes
> jointly the article, the author cover letter -explaining what is new
> there etc-, and at least two referee comments about the research. In
> the cover letter the author could explain if he is keeping with this
> work, or why he is unable to follow towards a standard finished
> publication. The referees, even staying anonymous, could make
> suggestions for future progress. And even double blind can be provided
> in publication, if the author does not wish to risk a more
> professional career.
>
> Perhaps referees should be paid in order to get them to dedicate time
> to the report. I am unsure here.
>
> Of course the big worry about such journal is crackpot input. I can
> imagine two ways to stop this flow. On one side, license transfer
> should let the journal to publish both the submitted -and rejected-
> job and the referee criticisms openly in a separate section, or
> perhaps in a website with limited right of reply. Secondly, from my
> net experience, I'd say that people on "circle quadrature" are
> basically single-idea guys. Thus by requesting them to justify what is
> new respect to previous presentations, they can be easily controlled.
> Am I being too optimistic?
>
> Alejandro Rivero
There is an abundance of web-published journals that accept papers of
creative/questionable content. Some have paper counterparts. One
would do better on many fronts to meet conservative journal
standards. Referees know stuff, both from credentials and from
experience. One viable alternative is to join the appropriate
professional society and publically present at their annual meeting
(talk, not a poster session). If you can get an academic group
interested, you are making progress. If the audience slays you in
place, you were horribly wrong. If nobody cares, then nobody cares.
Do better.
Even arXiv.org has some flat-out wowsers,
http://arXiv.org/find/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/1/au:+Aquino_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205089
Table at end of paper. That's ludicrous. Beneath contempt. Suppose
you could turn a dial and have a 60.5 kg lump exhibit 41 kg of
buoyancy instead, shooting up off the bench. Wouldn't you hold a
press conference and thereafter expect a phone call from Sweden in the
Fall? NASA would emerge from a sudden puddle of steaming body fluids
tossing bags of $100 bills your way. Large, heavy bags.
A year or two ago a conservative academic group investigated the
conversion of microwave radiation into gravitation via a
superconductor. The math was acceptably there, the effect was
detectably not. Podkletnov has never been reproduced, ditto cold
fusion. Physically spinning and spin polarized bodies do not
measurably violate the Equivalence Principle. There is no Fifth Force
detected (Fishbach). Failure in a good cause is abundant.
A heterodox proposal from *inside* the art generally has a long uphill
climb. A heterodox proposal from *outside* the art has a snowball's
chance in Hell. This is not to say it cannot be done - the parity
Eotvos experiment is now in collaboration with an academic group. It
only required three years of work by two dozen folks overall, 900
hours of donated supercomputer time, a public presentation at the APS
national meeting, and 20 minutes of intense private conversation
thereafter.
Learn how to give a good slide show, B&W transparencies or (fearsomely
abused) PowerPoint,
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/seminaronseminars.html
Do it Suslick's way or be damned. Practice a few dozen times,
speaking out loud!, and check the clock. Transparencies don't crash,
nor are they destroyed/confiscated by Homeland Severity. Don't stand
in front of the projection screen, between it and the audience. Ys,
it did happen - and it was an invited 40 minute talk.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(The parity Eotvos experiment is queued)
Doug Sweetser
Jun17-04, 06:15 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello Alejandro:\n\nPhysics is a mature science. Ideas that are worked out are "completely\nbaked." Giving the freedom to partially work out an idea opens many\ndoors, too many I suspect.\n\nJournals require logically coherent papers - everything hangs together.\nHow long one works on it is not relevant. Some papers get done\nquickly, others might take more than a year.\n\nPhysicists are too busy to listen to a partial presentation from an\nunknown third party. If they do know a person well, then they can have\na bull session, chalk in hand.\n\nThe work I do might be ideal for such a publication. I have my eighteen\npage RevTeX 4 paper all ready to go. I could submit it to a "low bar"\njournal, but why waste the paper? All I want is critical feedback, and\nsuch journals do not get read by busy people.\n\nInstead I use this newsgroup as my primary means for announcing trial\nballoons. I now know the critical weak point in my efforts for a\nclassical unified field theory: that professionals look at my Lagrange\ndensity and how I vary the action and presume I must fix the\nbackground, ergo it ain\'t gravity in the general relativity tradition.\nWithout gravity, it is not much of a unification of gravity and EM :-)\n\nIt is my responsibility to address that weakness. If I am a mature\nworker in a mature field, then I can accept that burden. Actually it\nis fun to have a well-defined puzzle to work on.\n\nAs far as personal web publishing goes, few professionals stop by in my\nexperience. A good fraction of hits to my page (~5000/day) may be due\nto an Internet rumour about the first edition of Maxwell\'s Treatise on\nElectromagnetism. There have been less than a dozen emails from people\nwho had a Ph.D. in physics over the seven years the site has been up\n("Doing Physics with Quaternions", obtuse, huh?).\n\nI did like the idea of making the comments of reviewers public. If that\nwas done for mainstream journals, how would that effect things? The\nmore transparent the better, even peer review. I think any journal\nthat gets known in any way for lowering quality will necessarily be low\ntraffic because information quality matters.\n\n\ndoug\nquaternions.com\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello Alejandro:
Physics is a mature science. Ideas that are worked out are "completely
baked." Giving the freedom to partially work out an idea opens many
doors, too many I suspect.
Journals require logically coherent papers - everything hangs together.
How long one works on it is not relevant. Some papers get done
quickly, others might take more than a year.
Physicists are too busy to listen to a partial presentation from an
unknown third party. If they do know a person well, then they can have
a bull session, chalk in hand.
The work I do might be ideal for such a publication. I have my eighteen
page RevTeX 4 paper all ready to go. I could submit it to a "low bar"
journal, but why waste the paper? All I want is critical feedback, and
such journals do not get read by busy people.
Instead I use this newsgroup as my primary means for announcing trial
balloons. I now know the critical weak point in my efforts for a
classical unified field theory: that professionals look at my Lagrange
density and how I vary the action and presume I must fix the
background, ergo it ain't gravity in the general relativity tradition.
Without gravity, it is not much of a unification of gravity and EM :-)
It is my responsibility to address that weakness. If I am a mature
worker in a mature field, then I can accept that burden. Actually it
is fun to have a well-defined puzzle to work on.
As far as personal web publishing goes, few professionals stop by in my
experience. A good fraction of hits to my page (~5000/day) may be due
to an Internet rumour about the first edition of Maxwell's Treatise on
Electromagnetism. There have been less than a dozen emails from people
who had a Ph.D. in physics over the seven years the site has been up
("Doing Physics with Quaternions", obtuse, huh?).
I did like the idea of making the comments of reviewers public. If that
was done for mainstream journals, how would that effect things? The
more transparent the better, even peer review. I think any journal
that gets known in any way for lowering quality will necessarily be low
traffic because information quality matters.
doug
quaternions.com
Thomas Dent
Jun18-04, 06:03 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nA journal for unpublished research sounds like a contradiction in\nterms - like a restaurant for uncooked food, or a channel for\nunbroadcasted programmes. However, let us see what it could mean.\n\n\nrivero@sol.unizar.es (alejandro.rivero) wrote\n\n> I would like to discuss how a journal of\n> physics could be oriented to work with half-baked or simply unfinished\n> research.\n\nThe particle theory and cosmology departments of Phys. Rev. Lett.\nsometimes correspond closely with this description. Unfortunately they\naccept half-baked research of only well-known authors, mainly those\nresiding in the U.S.\n\nMore seriously, letters journals should accept preliminary results as\nlong as they show some significant advance or new feature.\n\n\n> The problem I see with current journals is that they have accepted\n> that communication is done via meetings, while journals simply archive\n> and qualify the finished research. In this role, journal editors ask\n> for *finished* research and then they evaluate the quality according\n> journal standards. In this way the published work is a closed folder:\n> publish and move on.\n\nYes, that is what a journal is for: a permanent record. It is the\ndining room, not the kitchen. Intermediate working stages of a project\ntend to be messy, unenlightening and often plain wrong. Unless the\nintermediate working is particularly enlightening or useful for future\nwork (i.e. correct!), there is no point in covering more dead trees\nwith it.\n\n\n> Just lowering the bar to solve this problem does not work very well.\n\nI don\'t see what "the problem" is. There is accomodate real-time\nerror-strewn discussions like physicists have in theare things that a\njournal can and cannot do, and one of the things it cannot do privacy\nof their offices or by email. If you want to have a physics discussion\nabout your unfinished and possibly incorrect model, a journal is\nreally not a good way to do it, unless you are already a tenured\nprofessor.\n\n\n> A idea I am pondering about is to have a journal which publishes\n> jointly the article, the author cover letter -explaining what is new\n> there etc-, and at least two referee comments about the research. In\n> the cover letter the author could explain if he is keeping with this\n> work, or why he is unable to follow towards a standard finished\n> publication. The referees, even staying anonymous, could make\n> suggestions for future progress. And even double blind can be provided\n> in publication, if the author does not wish to risk a more\n> professional career.\n\nThe Journal of Indefensible Results? A strange idea. I suppose if\nreferee reports were published that would stop some abuses of the\nrefereeing process. Many referee reports are very boring, consisting\nof stuff like "You didn\'t explain this or that properly" or "This\nformula has such and such typos".\n\nI didn\'t know authors were supposed to send cover letters. Surely the\nabstract and introduction of the paper should tell the reader what is\nthe point of it.\n\n\n> Perhaps referees should be paid in order to get them to dedicate time\n> to the report. I am unsure here.\n\nAs a Phys. Rev. referee myself, I am very much in favour of this!\n\n\n> Of course the big worry about such journal is crackpot input.\n\nAs long as the journal did not promise to publish everything they\nreceived, it would not be a problem. (At least, no more than in\n\'regular\' journals. Remember Classical and Quantum Gravity published\nthe Bogdanoffs! And there are many worse journals that will publish\nalmost anything as long as it sounds vaguely scientific.)\n\nI suspect the prospect of seeing two referee\'s reports saying "This is\nincomprehensible trash, Signed, F. W*lcz*k" (or whoever) next to the\npaper would not encourage many crackpots.\n\n\nAt the APS Particles and Fields meeting in the U.S. once every couple\nof years they basically accept every application to give a talk and\nput the \'crackpots\' into a session where they give 10-minute talks.\nOne guy just showed his transparencies and didn\'t say a word. It was a\nbit unfortunate that someone who was demonstrably a competent\nphysicist (although with rather strange ideas) got put in the same\nsession. Being on the fringes is always an awkward position, there\'s\nno way round it.\n\nAnyway, the best way to proceed with a "fringe idea" is to forget\nabout it for 2 or 3 years (at least, not publish anything) and study\nthings that are non-fringe. Max Tegmark says he allows himself one\n"silly paper" per ten "normal" ones (or is it twenty?). There are some\nstring theorists whose ratio nowadays is larger than this.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>A journal for unpublished research sounds like a contradiction in
terms - like a restaurant for uncooked food, or a channel for
unbroadcasted programmes. However, let us see what it could mean.
rivero@sol.unizar.es (alejandro.rivero) wrote
> I would like to discuss how a journal of
> physics could be oriented to work with half-baked or simply unfinished
> research.
The particle theory and cosmology departments of Phys. Rev. Lett.
sometimes correspond closely with this description. Unfortunately they
accept half-baked research of only well-known authors, mainly those
residing in the U.S.
More seriously, letters journals should accept preliminary results as
long as they show some significant advance or new feature.
> The problem I see with current journals is that they have accepted
> that communication is done via meetings, while journals simply archive
> and qualify the finished research. In this role, journal editors ask
> for *finished* research and then they evaluate the quality according
> journal standards. In this way the published work is a closed folder:
> publish and move on.
Yes, that is what a journal is for: a permanent record. It is the
dining room, not the kitchen. Intermediate working stages of a project
tend to be messy, unenlightening and often plain wrong. Unless the
intermediate working is particularly enlightening or useful for future
work (i.e. correct!), there is no point in covering more dead trees
with it.
> Just lowering the bar to solve this problem does not work very well.
I don't see what "the problem" is. There is accomodate real-time
error-strewn discussions like physicists have in theare things that a
journal can and cannot do, and one of the things it cannot do privacy
of their offices or by email. If you want to have a physics discussion
about your unfinished and possibly incorrect model, a journal is
really not a good way to do it, unless you are already a tenured
professor.
> A idea I am pondering about is to have a journal which publishes
> jointly the article, the author cover letter -explaining what is new
> there etc-, and at least two referee comments about the research. In
> the cover letter the author could explain if he is keeping with this
> work, or why he is unable to follow towards a standard finished
> publication. The referees, even staying anonymous, could make
> suggestions for future progress. And even double blind can be provided
> in publication, if the author does not wish to risk a more
> professional career.
The Journal of Indefensible Results? A strange idea. I suppose if
referee reports were published that would stop some abuses of the
refereeing process. Many referee reports are very boring, consisting
of stuff like "You didn't explain this or that properly" or "This
formula has such and such typos".
I didn't know authors were supposed to send cover letters. Surely the
abstract and introduction of the paper should tell the reader what is
the point of it.
> Perhaps referees should be paid in order to get them to dedicate time
> to the report. I am unsure here.
As a Phys. Rev. referee myself, I am very much in favour of this!
> Of course the big worry about such journal is crackpot input.
As long as the journal did not promise to publish everything they
received, it would not be a problem. (At least, no more than in
'regular' journals. Remember Classical and Quantum Gravity published
the Bogdanoffs! And there are many worse journals that will publish
almost anything as long as it sounds vaguely scientific.)
I suspect the prospect of seeing two referee's reports saying "This is
incomprehensible trash, Signed, F. W*lcz*k" (or whoever) next to the
paper would not encourage many crackpots.
At the APS Particles and Fields meeting in the U.S. once every couple
of years they basically accept every application to give a talk and
put the 'crackpots' into a session where they give 10-minute talks.
One guy just showed his transparencies and didn't say a word. It was a
bit unfortunate that someone who was demonstrably a competent
physicist (although with rather strange ideas) got put in the same
session. Being on the fringes is always an awkward position, there's
no way round it.
Anyway, the best way to proceed with a "fringe idea" is to forget
about it for 2 or 3 years (at least, not publish anything) and study
things that are non-fringe. Max Tegmark says he allows himself one
"silly paper" per ten "normal" ones (or is it twenty?). There are some
string theorists whose ratio nowadays is larger than this.
alejandro.rivero
Jun18-04, 11:26 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nDoug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<carv0u\\$jbt\\$1@pcls4.std.com>...\n> Hello Alejandro:\n\nHello Doug, Al, and everyone.\n\nAl, I am aware of the importance of the conference circuit. A\nscientist with good social skills can do miracles even if hanging in a\nsecondary session. If besides (or, sometimes, instead) he has\npresentation and organisational abilities, he can rocket to to top\ncitation indexes. I was purposefully leaving out this almost personal\ndoor-to-door selling.\n\nAnd yep, I agree that even ten minute speech is better than poster\nsession, but a socially skilled poster can do it too.\n\n> Physics is a mature science. Ideas that are worked out are "completely\n> baked." Giving the freedom to partially work out an idea opens many\n> doors, too many I suspect.\n\nHmm as I said, asking what is new in an idea closes the more\nproblematic door, the one of people hanged in repeating the same idea.\nThis could be controlled also via a electronic Living Review mechanism\nfor reemplacements.\n\n> Journals require logically coherent papers - everything hangs together.\n> How long one works on it is not relevant. Some papers get done\n> quickly, others might take more than a year.\n\nDoug, perhaps here is the key: to concentrate in logically coherent\npapers, instead of finished ones.\n\n> journal, but why waste the paper? All I want is critical feedback, and\n> such journals do not get read by busy people.\n> Instead I use this newsgroup as my primary means for announcing trial\n> balloons.\n\nNewsgroups, and recently blogs, have been a source of -frustrated-\nhope for feedback and collaboration. I think that Urs, for example,\nhas collected some partial success on this.\n\n> It is my responsibility to address that weakness. If I am a mature\n> worker in a mature field, then I can accept that burden. Actually it\n> is fun to have a well-defined puzzle to work on.\n\nWell, my personal feelings are the closer thing to suffering I know...\none feels himself compelled to confront the puzzle, but knowing that\nhis skills are weaker than other people skills. It does not worry me\nto have a excess weight when I am fencing, because it is just a\npersonal issue. But I do not feel physics as personal, I feel it as a\ncollective activity of reason. Or it should be :-(\n\n> who had a Ph.D. in physics over the seven years the site has been up\n> ("Doing Physics with Quaternions", obtuse, huh?).\n\n(It sounds too generic... SU(2) and quaternions are almost the same\nobject.)\n\n> I did like the idea of making the comments of reviewers public. If that\n> was done for mainstream journals, how would that effect things? The\n> more transparent the better, even peer review. I think any journal\n> that gets known in any way for lowering quality will necessarily be low\n> traffic because information quality matters.\n\nPerhaps the way is not to low quality, but to bet for works that, if\nfinished, will be high quality. All the usual requisites should apply\nand filter the paper out if needed (or towards a open electronic\nstorage). But the readers of the journals should get the impression\nthat at least one of ten articles is going to have success enough to\ncompensate the other nine. That could be provoking enough to get\nreaders, and more feedback.\n\nNow I think about, another possibility is to ask the authors to\ncommunicate the journal any personal feedback they receive, for\npublication in a "comments on..." section. This could enhance the\ncommunity sentiment.\n\nAlejandro\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<carv0u$jbt$1@pcls4.std.com>...
> Hello Alejandro:
Hello Doug, Al, and everyone.
Al, I am aware of the importance of the conference circuit. A
scientist with good social skills can do miracles even if hanging in a
secondary session. If besides (or, sometimes, instead) he has
presentation and organisational abilities, he can rocket to to top
citation indexes. I was purposefully leaving out this almost personal
door-to-door selling.
And yep, I agree that even ten minute speech is better than poster
session, but a socially skilled poster can do it too.
> Physics is a mature science. Ideas that are worked out are "completely
> baked." Giving the freedom to partially work out an idea opens many
> doors, too many I suspect.
Hmm as I said, asking what is new in an idea closes the more
problematic door, the one of people hanged in repeating the same idea.
This could be controlled also via a electronic Living Review mechanism
for reemplacements.
> Journals require logically coherent papers - everything hangs together.
> How long one works on it is not relevant. Some papers get done
> quickly, others might take more than a year.
Doug, perhaps here is the key: to concentrate in logically coherent
papers, instead of finished ones.
> journal, but why waste the paper? All I want is critical feedback, and
> such journals do not get read by busy people.
> Instead I use this newsgroup as my primary means for announcing trial
> balloons.
Newsgroups, and recently blogs, have been a source of -frustrated-
hope for feedback and collaboration. I think that Urs, for example,
has collected some partial success on this.
> It is my responsibility to address that weakness. If I am a mature
> worker in a mature field, then I can accept that burden. Actually it
> is fun to have a well-defined puzzle to work on.
Well, my personal feelings are the closer thing to suffering I know...
one feels himself compelled to confront the puzzle, but knowing that
his skills are weaker than other people skills. It does not worry me
to have a excess weight when I am fencing, because it is just a
personal issue. But I do not feel physics as personal, I feel it as a
collective activity of reason. Or it should be :-(
> who had a Ph.D. in physics over the seven years the site has been up
> ("Doing Physics with Quaternions", obtuse, huh?).
(It sounds too generic... SU(2) and quaternions are almost the same
object.)
> I did like the idea of making the comments of reviewers public. If that
> was done for mainstream journals, how would that effect things? The
> more transparent the better, even peer review. I think any journal
> that gets known in any way for lowering quality will necessarily be low
> traffic because information quality matters.
Perhaps the way is not to low quality, but to bet for works that, if
finished, will be high quality. All the usual requisites should apply
and filter the paper out if needed (or towards a open electronic
storage). But the readers of the journals should get the impression
that at least one of ten articles is going to have success enough to
compensate the other nine. That could be provoking enough to get
readers, and more feedback.
Now I think about, another possibility is to ask the authors to
communicate the journal any personal feedback they receive, for
publication in a "comments on..." section. This could enhance the
community sentiment.
Alejandro
Alex Green
Jun23-04, 12:37 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>rivero@sol.unizar.es (alejandro.rivero) wrote in message news:<ee8203c6.0406150610.4329db92@posting.google. com>...\n> Hello,\n>\n> After some limited experience in both sides of the peer review system\n> during the last year, I have been thinking a bit about the problem to\n> communicate new ideas. I would like to discuss how a journal of\n> physics could be oriented to work with half-baked or simply unfinished\n> research.\n> ....\n\nThere is another category of research that desperately needs\nrepresentation: negative results.\n\nI once spent a month or so trying to replicate a technique then\nanother couple of months showing why the technique didn\'t work. This\narea of work had about 20 direct experimental papers and a host of\nreview papers related to it. My research was bullet-proof but I could\nnot get it published. Eventually direct contact with other workers in\nthe field led to the disappearance of this technique and the erroneus\nconclusions based on it. In that small field my negative results were\nthe most important step forward in several decades. To this day\nhowever any \'newby\' in that field of work will come across old papers\nthat describe a host of erroneus results and conclusions but will be\nunable to find why they are wrong.\n\nBest Wishes\n\nAlex Green\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>rivero@sol.unizar.es (alejandro.rivero) wrote in message news:<ee8203c6.0406150610.4329db92@posting.google.com>...
> Hello,
>
> After some limited experience in both sides of the peer review system
> during the last year, I have been thinking a bit about the problem to
> communicate new ideas. I would like to discuss how a journal of
> physics could be oriented to work with half-baked or simply unfinished
> research.
> ....
There is another category of research that desperately needs
representation: negative results.
I once spent a month or so trying to replicate a technique then
another couple of months showing why the technique didn't work. This
area of work had about 20 direct experimental papers and a host of
review papers related to it. My research was bullet-proof but I could
not get it published. Eventually direct contact with other workers in
the field led to the disappearance of this technique and the erroneus
conclusions based on it. In that small field my negative results were
the most important step forward in several decades. To this day
however any 'newby' in that field of work will come across old papers
that describe a host of erroneus results and conclusions but will be
unable to find why they are wrong.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
Murray Arnow
Jun27-04, 05:56 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>tdent@auth.gr (Thomas Dent) wrote:\n\n[...]\n>\n> I don\'t see what "the problem" is. There is accomodate real-time\n> error-strewn discussions like physicists have in theare things that a\n> journal can and cannot do, and one of the things it cannot do privacy\n> of their offices or by email. If you want to have a physics discussion\n> about your unfinished and possibly incorrect model, a journal is\n> really not a good way to do it, unless you are already a tenured\n> professor.\n>\n\nThis is an old problem. I recall thirty years ago editors for a British\njournal telling authors that referees were making "pungent remarks"\nabout piecemeal submissions. The journal requested that authors hold off\nsubmissions until they at least completed one course of their research\n(I\'m not sure how one knows when this happens).\n\nThe problem was that too many papers were being submitted with only\nsmall incremental findings from the same author(s). This may look nice\nin filling out a curriculum vitae but is a real burden on the referees.\n\nMany researchers, for career reasons, are very concerned about getting\ntheir names associated with findings and being the first to do so. There\nis some prestige associated with the latter. The scientific community\nhas agreed with this notion and has provided vehicles for that purpose.\nThey are usually named "Letters...." The refereeing is typically a bit\nmore liberal about acceptance.\n\n[...]\n>\n> At the APS Particles and Fields meeting in the U.S. once every couple\n> of years they basically accept every application to give a talk and\n> put the \'crackpots\' into a session where they give 10-minute talks.\n> One guy just showed his transparencies and didn\'t say a word. It was a\n> bit unfortunate that someone who was demonstrably a competent\n> physicist (although with rather strange ideas) got put in the same\n> session. Being on the fringes is always an awkward position, there\'s\n> no way round it.\n>\n\nThis may be the best argument for not having a "crackpot" journal.\nAnyone who gets his works published there runs a serious risk of being\nbranded a crackpot. This is worse for a career than not being published.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>tdent@auth.gr (Thomas Dent) wrote:
[...]
>
> I don't see what "the problem" is. There is accomodate real-time
> error-strewn discussions like physicists have in theare things that a
> journal can and cannot do, and one of the things it cannot do privacy
> of their offices or by email. If you want to have a physics discussion
> about your unfinished and possibly incorrect model, a journal is
> really not a good way to do it, unless you are already a tenured
> professor.
>
This is an old problem. I recall thirty years ago editors for a British
journal telling authors that referees were making "pungent remarks"
about piecemeal submissions. The journal requested that authors hold off
submissions until they at least completed one course of their research
(I'm not sure how one knows when this happens).
The problem was that too many papers were being submitted with only
small incremental findings from the same author(s). This may look nice
in filling out a curriculum vitae but is a real burden on the referees.
Many researchers, for career reasons, are very concerned about getting
their names associated with findings and being the first to do so. There
is some prestige associated with the latter. The scientific community
has agreed with this notion and has provided vehicles for that purpose.
They are usually named "Letters...." The refereeing is typically a bit
more liberal about acceptance.
[...]
>
> At the APS Particles and Fields meeting in the U.S. once every couple
> of years they basically accept every application to give a talk and
> put the 'crackpots' into a session where they give 10-minute talks.
> One guy just showed his transparencies and didn't say a word. It was a
> bit unfortunate that someone who was demonstrably a competent
> physicist (although with rather strange ideas) got put in the same
> session. Being on the fringes is always an awkward position, there's
> no way round it.
>
This may be the best argument for not having a "crackpot" journal.
Anyone who gets his works published there runs a serious risk of being
branded a crackpot. This is worse for a career than not being published.
alejandro.rivero
Jun27-04, 05:56 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<carv0u\\$jbt\\$1@pcls4.std.com>...\n> Hello Alejandro:\n\nHello Doug, Al, and everyone.\n\nAl, I am aware of the importance of the conference circuit. A\nscientist with good social skills can do miracles even if hanging in a\nsecondary session. If besides (or, sometimes, instead) he has\npresentation and organisational abilities, he can rocket to to top\ncitation indexes. I was purposefully leaving out this almost personal\ndoor-to-door selling.\n\nAnd yep, I agree that even ten minute speech is better than poster\nsession, but a socially skilled poster can do it too.\n\n> Physics is a mature science. Ideas that are worked out are "completely\n> baked." Giving the freedom to partially work out an idea opens many\n> doors, too many I suspect.\n\nHmm as I said, asking what is new in an idea closes the more\nproblematic door, the one of people hanged in repeating the same idea.\nThis could be controlled also via a electronic Living Review mechanism\nfor reemplacements.\n\n> Journals require logically coherent papers - everything hangs together.\n> How long one works on it is not relevant. Some papers get done\n> quickly, others might take more than a year.\n\nDoug, perhaps here is the key: to concentrate in logically coherent\npapers, instead of finished ones.\n\n> journal, but why waste the paper? All I want is critical feedback, and\n> such journals do not get read by busy people.\n> Instead I use this newsgroup as my primary means for announcing trial\n> balloons.\n\nNewsgroups, and recently blogs, have been a source of -frustrated-\nhope for feedback and collaboration. I think that Urs, for example,\nhas collected some partial success on this.\n\n> It is my responsibility to address that weakness. If I am a mature\n> worker in a mature field, then I can accept that burden. Actually it\n> is fun to have a well-defined puzzle to work on.\n\nWell, my personal feelings are the closer thing to suffering I know...\none feels himself compelled to confront the puzzle, but knowing that\nhis skills are weaker than other people skills. It does not worry me\nto have a excess weight when I am fencing, because it is just a\npersonal issue. But I do not feel physics as personal, I feel it as a\ncollective activity of reason. Or it should be :-(\n\n> who had a Ph.D. in physics over the seven years the site has been up\n> ("Doing Physics with Quaternions", obtuse, huh?).\n\n(It sounds too generic... SU(2) and quaternions are almost the same\nobject.)\n\n> I did like the idea of making the comments of reviewers public. If that\n> was done for mainstream journals, how would that effect things? The\n> more transparent the better, even peer review. I think any journal\n> that gets known in any way for lowering quality will necessarily be low\n> traffic because information quality matters.\n\nPerhaps the way is not to low quality, but to bet for works that, if\nfinished, will be high quality. All the usual requisites should apply\nand filter the paper out if needed (or towards a open electronic\nstorage). But the readers of the journals should get the impression\nthat at least one of ten articles is going to have success enough to\ncompensate the other nine. That could be provoking enough to get\nreaders, and more feedback.\n\nNow I think about, another possibility is to ask the authors to\ncommunicate the journal any personal feedback they receive, for\npublication in a "comments on..." section. This could enhance the\ncommunity sentiment.\n\nAlejandro\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<carv0u$jbt$1@pcls4.std.com>...
> Hello Alejandro:
Hello Doug, Al, and everyone.
Al, I am aware of the importance of the conference circuit. A
scientist with good social skills can do miracles even if hanging in a
secondary session. If besides (or, sometimes, instead) he has
presentation and organisational abilities, he can rocket to to top
citation indexes. I was purposefully leaving out this almost personal
door-to-door selling.
And yep, I agree that even ten minute speech is better than poster
session, but a socially skilled poster can do it too.
> Physics is a mature science. Ideas that are worked out are "completely
> baked." Giving the freedom to partially work out an idea opens many
> doors, too many I suspect.
Hmm as I said, asking what is new in an idea closes the more
problematic door, the one of people hanged in repeating the same idea.
This could be controlled also via a electronic Living Review mechanism
for reemplacements.
> Journals require logically coherent papers - everything hangs together.
> How long one works on it is not relevant. Some papers get done
> quickly, others might take more than a year.
Doug, perhaps here is the key: to concentrate in logically coherent
papers, instead of finished ones.
> journal, but why waste the paper? All I want is critical feedback, and
> such journals do not get read by busy people.
> Instead I use this newsgroup as my primary means for announcing trial
> balloons.
Newsgroups, and recently blogs, have been a source of -frustrated-
hope for feedback and collaboration. I think that Urs, for example,
has collected some partial success on this.
> It is my responsibility to address that weakness. If I am a mature
> worker in a mature field, then I can accept that burden. Actually it
> is fun to have a well-defined puzzle to work on.
Well, my personal feelings are the closer thing to suffering I know...
one feels himself compelled to confront the puzzle, but knowing that
his skills are weaker than other people skills. It does not worry me
to have a excess weight when I am fencing, because it is just a
personal issue. But I do not feel physics as personal, I feel it as a
collective activity of reason. Or it should be :-(
> who had a Ph.D. in physics over the seven years the site has been up
> ("Doing Physics with Quaternions", obtuse, huh?).
(It sounds too generic... SU(2) and quaternions are almost the same
object.)
> I did like the idea of making the comments of reviewers public. If that
> was done for mainstream journals, how would that effect things? The
> more transparent the better, even peer review. I think any journal
> that gets known in any way for lowering quality will necessarily be low
> traffic because information quality matters.
Perhaps the way is not to low quality, but to bet for works that, if
finished, will be high quality. All the usual requisites should apply
and filter the paper out if needed (or towards a open electronic
storage). But the readers of the journals should get the impression
that at least one of ten articles is going to have success enough to
compensate the other nine. That could be provoking enough to get
readers, and more feedback.
Now I think about, another possibility is to ask the authors to
communicate the journal any personal feedback they receive, for
publication in a "comments on..." section. This could enhance the
community sentiment.
Alejandro
Doug Sweetser
Jun27-04, 05:56 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello Alejandro:\n\n> And yep, I agree that even ten minute speech is better than poster\n> session, but a socially skilled poster can do it too.\n\nI have done three of ten minute talks so far. My work in preparing them\nhas been very valuable to me. One needs to perform off-off-Broadway\nbefore being asked to perform off-Broadway (the odds of WGBH calling to\ndo the three hour Nova docudrama are as good as all the air in the room\ngoing into one corner. Actually, that did happen to me one time, but I\nguessed the wrong corner!).\n\nMy poster session experience had a comic element. I was getting ready\nto setup my 4x4 presentation, looking for the spot that would get the\nmost traffic. Well, this older gentleman was talking to one of the\norganizers about how his important work on why Einstein was wrong\nneeded to be seen by everyone. He got a great spot. I chose my\nlocation behind a pole simply because it was the farthest away. I also\nlearned that people drinking wine are not going to go through the\ndetails of applying the Euler-Lagrange equations to a Lagrange density,\nso one does need to prepare the quick pitch. Wine or no wine, most\npeople avoid lots of diff eqs.\n\n\n>> Journals require logically coherent papers - everything hangs\n>> together. How long one works on it is not relevant. Some papers\n>> get done quickly, others might take more than a year.\n>\n> Doug, perhaps here is the key: to concentrate in logically coherent\n> papers, instead of finished ones.\n\nIt was interesting to hear that people do get more slack than I was\naware of. Yes, coherence is key.\n\n\n> Well, my personal feelings are the closer thing to suffering I know...\n> one feels himself compelled to confront the puzzle, but knowing that\n> his skills are weaker than other people skills. It does not worry me\n> to have a excess weight when I am fencing, because it is just a\n> personal issue. But I do not feel physics as personal, I feel it as a\n> collective activity of reason. Or it should be :-(\n\nI don\'t view this as a battle between people, or otherwise I would be\noverwhealmed by the skills of the competition. Instead, it is everyone\nagainst Nature. She is silent and supreme. I don\'t have to feel bad\nif I don\'t solve the most difficult riddles that exist. I do have the\nresponsibility to keep trying.\n\nCommunity building is difficult. People think about very different\ntopics. People can mean different things. The further away from a\nPh.D. granting institution one is, the harder things become. As an\nexample, when I first started to play with Lagrange densities, I talked\nabout the tensor A^u,v. The problem is, that doesn\'t transform like a\ntensor, but A^u;v does.\n\n\n>> who had a Ph.D. in physics over the seven years the site has been up\n>> ("Doing Physics with Quaternions", obtuse, huh?).\n>\n> (It sounds too generic... SU(2) and quaternions are almost the same\n> object.)\n\nNo. SU(2) is a subspecies of quaternions, specifically the ones with a\nnorm of 1. It takes three numbers in the Lie algebra su(2) to generate\nthe Lie group SU(2). Does anyone here know the Lie group description\nfor the more general quaternions, no limits on the norms? I swear I\nhave never read a thing about that (maybe there is a good reason). My\none bit of speculation is the following group might cover the\nmultiplication table of quaternions: U(1)xSU(2). The Lie algebra su(1)\nhas one generator, su(2) three, so together that would be the 4 degrees\nof freedom for quaternions. A quaternion will commute with itself or\nanything else that has the same 3-vector. Any arbitrary quaternion q\'\ncould be represented by: q\' = q/|q| (q-q*)/|q-q*|. Notice that q/|q|\nwill commute with the unit quaternion (q-q*)/|q-q*| which points in the\nsame direction. I wish I had the power to make a group theory jock\ntake a look at that idea for five minutes. It would be so cool if the\nsymmetry of electroweak theory was the same a writing out a quaternion.\n\n\n> Now I think about, another possibility is to ask the authors to\n> communicate the journal any personal feedback they receive, for\n> publication in a "comments on..." section. This could enhance the\n> community sentiment.\n\nIf an outside exchange was important enough, it would lead to a\ncollaboration and another paper, at least in an ideal world.\n\n\ndoug\nquaternions.com\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello Alejandro:
> And yep, I agree that even ten minute speech is better than poster
> session, but a socially skilled poster can do it too.
I have done three of ten minute talks so far. My work in preparing them
has been very valuable to me. One needs to perform off-off-Broadway
before being asked to perform off-Broadway (the odds of WGBH calling to
do the three hour Nova docudrama are as good as all the air in the room
going into one corner. Actually, that did happen to me one time, but I
guessed the wrong corner!).
My poster session experience had a comic element. I was getting ready
to setup my 4x4 presentation, looking for the spot that would get the
most traffic. Well, this older gentleman was talking to one of the
organizers about how his important work on why Einstein was wrong
needed to be seen by everyone. He got a great spot. I chose my
location behind a pole simply because it was the farthest away. I also
learned that people drinking wine are not going to go through the
details of applying the Euler-Lagrange equations to a Lagrange density,
so one does need to prepare the quick pitch. Wine or no wine, most
people avoid lots of diff eqs.
>> Journals require logically coherent papers - everything hangs
>> together. How long one works on it is not relevant. Some papers
>> get done quickly, others might take more than a year.
>
> Doug, perhaps here is the key: to concentrate in logically coherent
> papers, instead of finished ones.
It was interesting to hear that people do get more slack than I was
aware of. Yes, coherence is key.
> Well, my personal feelings are the closer thing to suffering I know...
> one feels himself compelled to confront the puzzle, but knowing that
> his skills are weaker than other people skills. It does not worry me
> to have a excess weight when I am fencing, because it is just a
> personal issue. But I do not feel physics as personal, I feel it as a
> collective activity of reason. Or it should be :-(
I don't view this as a battle between people, or otherwise I would be
overwhealmed by the skills of the competition. Instead, it is everyone
against Nature. She is silent and supreme. I don't have to feel bad
if I don't solve the most difficult riddles that exist. I do have the
responsibility to keep trying.
Community building is difficult. People think about very different
topics. People can mean different things. The further away from a
Ph.D. granting institution one is, the harder things become. As an
example, when I first started to play with Lagrange densities, I talked
about the tensor A^u,v. The problem is, that doesn't transform like a
tensor, but A^u;v does.
>> who had a Ph.D. in physics over the seven years the site has been up
>> ("Doing Physics with Quaternions", obtuse, huh?).
>
> (It sounds too generic... SU(2) and quaternions are almost the same
> object.)
No. SU(2) is a subspecies of quaternions, specifically the ones with a
norm of 1. It takes three numbers in the Lie algebra su(2) to generate
the Lie group SU(2). Does anyone here know the Lie group description
for the more general quaternions, no limits on the norms? I swear I
have never read a thing about that (maybe there is a good reason). My
one bit of speculation is the following group might cover the
multiplication table of quaternions: U(1)xSU(2). The Lie algebra su(1)
has one generator, su(2) three, so together that would be the 4 degrees
of freedom for quaternions. A quaternion will commute with itself or
anything else that has the same 3-vector. Any arbitrary quaternion q'
could be represented by: q' = q/|q| (q-q*)/|q-q*|. Notice that q/|q|
will commute with the unit quaternion (q-q*)/|q-q*| which points in the
same direction. I wish I had the power to make a group theory jock
take a look at that idea for five minutes. It would be so cool if the
symmetry of electroweak theory was the same a writing out a quaternion.
> Now I think about, another possibility is to ask the authors to
> communicate the journal any personal feedback they receive, for
> publication in a "comments on..." section. This could enhance the
> community sentiment.
If an outside exchange was important enough, it would lead to a
collaboration and another paper, at least in an ideal world.
doug
quaternions.com
Caroline Thompson
Jun27-04, 06:00 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Alex Green" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message\nnews:42c8441.0406230238.1ef11b26@posting. google.com...\n> rivero@sol.unizar.es (alejandro.rivero) wrote in message\nnews:<ee8203c6.0406150610.4329db92@postin g.google.com>...\n> > Hello,\n> >\n> > After some limited experience in both sides of the peer review\n> > system during the last year, I have been thinking a bit about the\n> > problem to communicate new ideas. I would like to discuss how\n> > a journal of physics could be oriented to work with half-baked\n> > or simply unfinished research ...\n>\n> There is another category of research that desperately needs\n> representation: negative results.\n>\n> I once spent a month or so trying to replicate a technique then\n> another couple of months showing why the technique didn\'t work.\n> This area of work had about 20 direct experimental papers and a\n> host of review papers related to it. My research was bullet-proof\n> but I could not get it published. Eventually direct contact with\n> other workers in the field led to the disappearance of this technique\n> and the erroneus conclusions based on it ...\n\nThe same has happened with my work, re-analysing the Bell test experiments,\nexcept that dubious conclusions continue to be accepted. This is not\nbecause anyone who has seen it thinks my work is wrong, but simply because\nit has not been published in the top journals.\n\nMy work does not in itself prove QM wrong, it merely opens the way for local\nrealist alternatives. To check which theory is best just few small\nexperiments are needed, altering the conditions of existing experiments to\ninvestigate the effect on the Bell test of changes such as use of different\ndetectors, different beam intensities or different coincidence windows. I\nam not an experimenter, though. I have not been able to persuade any\nexperimenter to undertake the necessary tests.\n\nTwo important papers have been rejected. One (\nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903066 ) concerns an adjustment to the data\nthat has been made in a few experiments. Thanks to my correspondence with\nthe experimenters concerned, practice has changed: either the adjustment is\nnot done or analyses of both raw and adjusted data is presented. The other\n( http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0210150 ) explains a loophole that is "well\nknown" but evidently not well understood. If it were, then we would not\nfind experimenters accepting so freely the assumption of "fair sampling"\nthat is needed for the validity of their test.\n\n> In that small field my negative results were the most important step\n> forward in several decades. To this day however any \'newby\' in\n> that field of work will come across old papers that describe a host\n> of erroneus results and conclusions but will be\n> unable to find why they are wrong.\n\nIn the case of the Bell tests, the fact that the claims of quantum theory\nsuccess are not on solid scientific foundations is glossed over. If my work\nwere more widely known this would surely not be the case, since it is clear\nto me (and to others who have studied the facts) that the experiments can\nall be explained by essentially classical methods, with no need to invoke\n"nonlocal" effects. As far as the published experimental results are\nconcerned, one can choose between the "conceptually difficult" QM\nexplanation and a straightforward local causal one.\n\nAs one of my referees said re the best-known ("detection") loophole, "this\nloophole has been rediscovered many times". In other words, everyone coming\ninto the field either accepts an assumption that can in fact quite easily be\nshown to be generally untrue or wastes his time re-discovering the loophole.\nIn the meantime, great numbers of reported "violations of Bell tests" that\nare known to myself and quite a few others to be based on false assumptions\ncontinue to be chalked up as quantum theory "successes".\n\nCaroline\n\nCaroline H Thompson\n\nch.thompson1@virgin.net\nhttp://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Alex Green" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42c8441.0406230238.1ef11b26@posting.google.co m...
> rivero@sol.unizar.es (alejandro.rivero) wrote in message
news:<ee8203c6.0406150610.4329db92@posting.google.com>...
> > Hello,
> >
> > After some limited experience in both sides of the peer review
> > system during the last year, I have been thinking a bit about the
> > problem to communicate new ideas. I would like to discuss how
> > a journal of physics could be oriented to work with half-baked
> > or simply unfinished research ...
>
> There is another category of research that desperately needs
> representation: negative results.
>
> I once spent a month or so trying to replicate a technique then
> another couple of months showing why the technique didn't work.
> This area of work had about 20 direct experimental papers and a
> host of review papers related to it. My research was bullet-proof
> but I could not get it published. Eventually direct contact with
> other workers in the field led to the disappearance of this technique
> and the erroneus conclusions based on it ...
The same has happened with my work, re-analysing the Bell test experiments,
except that dubious conclusions continue to be accepted. This is not
because anyone who has seen it thinks my work is wrong, but simply because
it has not been published in the top journals.
My work does not in itself prove QM wrong, it merely opens the way for local
realist alternatives. To check which theory is best just few small
experiments are needed, altering the conditions of existing experiments to
investigate the effect on the Bell test of changes such as use of different
detectors, different beam intensities or different coincidence windows. I
am not an experimenter, though. I have not been able to persuade any
experimenter to undertake the necessary tests.
Two important papers have been rejected. One (
http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903066 ) concerns an adjustment to the data
that has been made in a few experiments. Thanks to my correspondence with
the experimenters concerned, practice has changed: either the adjustment is
not done or analyses of both raw and adjusted data is presented. The other
( http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0210150 ) explains a loophole that is "well
known" but evidently not well understood. If it were, then we would not
find experimenters accepting so freely the assumption of "fair sampling"
that is needed for the validity of their test.
> In that small field my negative results were the most important step
> forward in several decades. To this day however any 'newby' in
> that field of work will come across old papers that describe a host
> of erroneus results and conclusions but will be
> unable to find why they are wrong.
In the case of the Bell tests, the fact that the claims of quantum theory
success are not on solid scientific foundations is glossed over. If my work
were more widely known this would surely not be the case, since it is clear
to me (and to others who have studied the facts) that the experiments can
all be explained by essentially classical methods, with no need to invoke
"nonlocal" effects. As far as the published experimental results are
concerned, one can choose between the "conceptually difficult" QM
explanation and a straightforward local causal one.
As one of my referees said re the best-known ("detection") loophole, "this
loophole has been rediscovered many times". In other words, everyone coming
into the field either accepts an assumption that can in fact quite easily be
shown to be generally untrue or wastes his time re-discovering the loophole.
In the meantime, great numbers of reported "violations of Bell tests" that
are known to myself and quite a few others to be based on false assumptions
continue to be chalked up as quantum theory "successes".
Caroline
Caroline H Thompson
ch.thompson1@virgin.net
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/
Caroline Thompson
Jun28-04, 12:10 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nHi Doug\n"Doug Sweetser" <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message\nnews:carv0u\\$jbt\\$1@pcls4.std.com...\n\ n> I did like the idea of making the comments of reviewers public. If that\nwas done for mainstream journals, how would that effect things? The more\ntransparent the better, even peer review. I think any journal that gets\nknown in any way for lowering quality will necessarily be low traffic\nbecause information quality matters.\n\nIn desperation I have put some editorial comments on my web site. They\ninclude the editorial policy statement of Phys. Rev. A on my subject, which\nhas been indiscriminately applied not only to my own work but, to my\nknowledge, as the main reason for rejection of at least one other.\n\nIt reads:\n\n"In 1964, John Bell proved that local realistic theories led to an upper\nbound on correlations between distant events (Bell\'s inequality) and that\nquantum mechanics had predictions that violated that inequality. Ten years\nlater, experimenters started to test in the laboratory the violation of\nBell\'s inequality (or similar predictions of local realism). No experiment\nis perfect, and various authors invented "loopholes" such that the\nexperiments were still compatible with local realism. Of course nobody\nproposed a local realistic theory that would reproduce quantitative\npredictions of quantum theory (energy levels, transition rates, etc.).\n\nThis loophole hunting has no interest whatsoever in physics. It tells us\nnothing on the properties of nature. It makes no prediction that can be\ntested in new experiments. Therefore I recommend not to publish such papers\nin Physical Review A. Perhaps they could be suitable for a journal on the\nphilosophy of science."\n\n\nAs I say in a new appendix to the latest rejected paper:\n\n"Despite my protestations that the loopholes are there to be discovered, not\n"invented"; that it is unreasonable to expect a paper that explains the Bell\ntest results - essentially a matter of logic and experimental method - also\nto discuss energy levels and transition rates; that my ideas do lead to new\nphysics (in that they give new reason to replace the photon model of light\nby a wave model); that they do make testable predictions; and that it is not\nphilosophers of science who need to know about them but experimenters and\ntheorists, there seems never to have been any chance of acceptance of my\nsubmissions."\n\nCaroline\n\nCaroline H Thompson\n\nch.thompson1@virgin.net\nhttp://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hi Doug
"Doug Sweetser" <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:carv0u$jbt$1@pcls4.std.com...
> I did like the idea of making the comments of reviewers public. If that
was done for mainstream journals, how would that effect things? The more
transparent the better, even peer review. I think any journal that gets
known in any way for lowering quality will necessarily be low traffic
because information quality matters.
In desperation I have put some editorial comments on my web site. They
include the editorial policy statement of Phys. Rev. A on my subject, which
has been indiscriminately applied not only to my own work but, to my
knowledge, as the main reason for rejection of at least one other.
It reads:
"In 1964, John Bell proved that local realistic theories led to an upper
bound on correlations between distant events (Bell's inequality) and that
quantum mechanics had predictions that violated that inequality. Ten years
later, experimenters started to test in the laboratory the violation of
Bell's inequality (or similar predictions of local realism). No experiment
is perfect, and various authors invented "loopholes" such that the
experiments were still compatible with local realism. Of course nobody
proposed a local realistic theory that would reproduce quantitative
predictions of quantum theory (energy levels, transition rates, etc.).
This loophole hunting has no interest whatsoever in physics. It tells us
nothing on the properties of nature. It makes no prediction that can be
tested in new experiments. Therefore I recommend not to publish such papers
in Physical Review A. Perhaps they could be suitable for a journal on the
philosophy of science."
As I say in a new appendix to the latest rejected paper:
"Despite my protestations that the loopholes are there to be discovered, not
"invented"; that it is unreasonable to expect a paper that explains the Bell
test results - essentially a matter of logic and experimental method - also
to discuss energy levels and transition rates; that my ideas do lead to new
physics (in that they give new reason to replace the photon model of light
by a wave model); that they do make testable predictions; and that it is not
philosophers of science who need to know about them but experimenters and
theorists, there seems never to have been any chance of acceptance of my
submissions."
Caroline
Caroline H Thompson
ch.thompson1@virgin.net
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/
alejandro.rivero
Jun29-04, 04:29 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) wrote in message news:<42c8441.0406230238.1ef11b26@posting.google.c om>...\n\n> not get it published. Eventually direct contact with other workers in\n> the field led to the disappearance of this technique and the erroneous\n> conclusions based on it. In that small field my negative results were\n> the most important step forward in several decades.\n\nIt seems that at the end, only direct contact -sort of a pub after\nmeeting, if not the meeting itself- is working. Not only journal, but\ninternet taskforcing is showing very limited success.\n\nI have been also thinking if a kind of internet-run "mathematical\nreviews", but for physics, could help to dynamise (*) the situation.\n\nAlejandro\n\n(*)my speller checker suggest "dynamite" !\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) wrote in message news:<42c8441.0406230238.1ef11b26@posting.google.com>...
> not get it published. Eventually direct contact with other workers in
> the field led to the disappearance of this technique and the erroneous
> conclusions based on it. In that small field my negative results were
> the most important step forward in several decades.
It seems that at the end, only direct contact -sort of a pub after
meeting, if not the meeting itself- is working. Not only journal, but
internet taskforcing is showing very limited success.
I have been also thinking if a kind of internet-run "mathematical
reviews", but for physics, could help to dynamise (*) the situation.
Alejandro
(*)my speller checker suggest "dynamite" !
Doug Sweetser
Jun30-04, 05:38 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello Caroline:\n\n> In desperation\n\nNature is indifferent to whether we understand its ways. I try to adopt\nthat same attitude towards my work. It deflects insults and prevents\nego bloat from the rare experiences of praise.\n\n> I have put some editorial comments on my web site.\n\nGood for you.\n\n> "In 1964, John Bell proved that local realistic theories led to an\n> upper bound on correlations between distant events (Bell\'s inequality)\n> and that quantum mechanics had predictions that violated that\n> inequality. Ten years later, experimenters started to test in the\n> laboratory the violation of Bell\'s inequality (or similar predictions\n> of local realism). No experiment is perfect, and various authors\n> invented "loopholes" such that the experiments were still compatible\n> with local realism. Of course nobody proposed a local realistic theory\n> that would reproduce quantitative predictions of quantum theory\n> (energy levels, transition rates, etc.).\n\nThis does sound like a fair reading of the the past literature. No one\nhas beat Bell yet!\n\n\n> This loophole hunting has no interest whatsoever in physics.\n\nWell, this is not generous, and certainly could be wrong someday, but\nprobably not (meaning betting on a trend that has lasted several\ndecades is safe). This person may have skimmed through a few papers of\nthis variety, and was not willing to give an open reading. That does\nhappen, and the tone suggests it happened here.\n\n> It tells us nothing on the properties of nature. It makes no\n> prediction that can be tested in new experiments.\n\nThis to me has to be the one core issue. Later you claim "that they do\nmake testable predictions". This really should be the focus of the\npaper, front and center.\n\nI read the abstract of your paper, and really don\'t want to read any\nmore (that is my gut reaction). An abstract is a summary of results.\nInstead, there is a complaint:\n\n"Prestigious journals have been driven in desperation to reject all\npapers on the Bell test loopholes as being of no interest to\nphysics."\n\nPrestigious journals do not strike me as being desperate, they are too\nstuffy for that. I don\'t think a line like this, however true, should\never be in an abstract. The comment is about the publication process,\nnot about what this paper is about. Abstracts should answer: What is\nthe problem, how do you bring new things to the discussion, what\nexactly are the new predictions? Since I saw no new predictions, my\ninterest was not sparked. The abstract must sell results or people\nwill stop reading like I did.\n\n\nFrom a quick scan of your web site, you may have a hard time publishing.\n\n>I am led to suggest that perhaps there is other currently-accepted\n>"evidence" for both quantum theory and Einstein\'s relativity theories\n>that needs re-investigation. (There is! See Forgotten History .) I\n>am not talking of "re-interpretation", but of recognizing that if we\n>want to understand nature, not just produce "predictions", the first\n>step is to re-assess the facts, reject falsehoods.\n\nPhysicists do not like their evidence put in quotes! Anytime people\nstart using quotes, I have to "wonder" what they really "mean" :-) If\nI had to rank physics by solid logical foundations, it would go:\nclassical mechanic, the Maxwell equations, special relativity, and\nquantum mechanics. All of these strike me a granite-solid theories\nthat predict an enormous number of things (more than I would be able to\ncalculate in a lifetime). There are lots of different ways to\nunderstand these things. It is a great exercise to look for new ways\nto understand things. I will however never dis Dirac for the clear way\nhe presents the logic of quantum mechanics. The man was too great.\nThere were times when reading "The principles of quantum mechanics"\nwere I felt a kind of chill due to the clarity of his presentation. I\ndo have my own slant on _why_ causality is different for quantum\nmechanics, one that would take quality time with a mathematical\nphysicist who loved complex analysis to work out the detail. Given the\ncurrent arc of my life (downward physically and professionally), I may\nnot get any of my own work published. Fortunately I am indifferent :-)\nIf it is all a technical delusion - it may certainly be the case - then\nit had its rewards in coloring my world view. If some aspects had\ntruth inaccurately presented, then some other person will go over that\npath again, straighten things up, and sell the ideas to intellectual\nmarketplace. Seams like a win-win.\n\n\ndoug\nquaternions.com\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello Caroline:
> In desperation
Nature is indifferent to whether we understand its ways. I try to adopt
that same attitude towards my work. It deflects insults and prevents
ego bloat from the rare experiences of praise.
> I have put some editorial comments on my web site.
Good for you.
> "In 1964, John Bell proved that local realistic theories led to an
> upper bound on correlations between distant events (Bell's inequality)
> and that quantum mechanics had predictions that violated that
> inequality. Ten years later, experimenters started to test in the
> laboratory the violation of Bell's inequality (or similar predictions
> of local realism). No experiment is perfect, and various authors
> invented "loopholes" such that the experiments were still compatible
> with local realism. Of course nobody proposed a local realistic theory
> that would reproduce quantitative predictions of quantum theory
> (energy levels, transition rates, etc.).
This does sound like a fair reading of the the past literature. No one
has beat Bell yet!
> This loophole hunting has no interest whatsoever in physics.
Well, this is not generous, and certainly could be wrong someday, but
probably not (meaning betting on a trend that has lasted several
decades is safe). This person may have skimmed through a few papers of
this variety, and was not willing to give an open reading. That does
happen, and the tone suggests it happened here.
> It tells us nothing on the properties of nature. It makes no
> prediction that can be tested in new experiments.
This to me has to be the one core issue. Later you claim "that they do
make testable predictions". This really should be the focus of the
paper, front and center.
I read the abstract of your paper, and really don't want to read any
more (that is my gut reaction). An abstract is a summary of results.
Instead, there is a complaint:
"Prestigious journals have been driven in desperation to reject all
papers on the Bell test loopholes as being of no interest to
physics."
Prestigious journals do not strike me as being desperate, they are too
stuffy for that. I don't think a line like this, however true, should
ever be in an abstract. The comment is about the publication process,
not about what this paper is about. Abstracts should answer: What is
the problem, how do you bring new things to the discussion, what
exactly are the new predictions? Since I saw no new predictions, my
interest was not sparked. The abstract must sell results or people
will stop reading like I did.
From a quick scan of your web site, you may have a hard time publishing.
>I am led to suggest that perhaps there is other currently-accepted
>"evidence" for both quantum theory and Einstein's relativity theories
>that needs re-investigation. (There is! See Forgotten History .) I
>am not talking of "re-interpretation", but of recognizing that if we
>want to understand nature, not just produce "predictions", the first
>step is to re-assess the facts, reject falsehoods.
Physicists do not like their evidence put in quotes! Anytime people
start using quotes, I have to "wonder" what they really "mean" :-) If
I had to rank physics by solid logical foundations, it would go:
classical mechanic, the Maxwell equations, special relativity, and
quantum mechanics. All of these strike me a granite-solid theories
that predict an enormous number of things (more than I would be able to
calculate in a lifetime). There are lots of different ways to
understand these things. It is a great exercise to look for new ways
to understand things. I will however never dis Dirac for the clear way
he presents the logic of quantum mechanics. The man was too great.
There were times when reading "The principles of quantum mechanics"
were I felt a kind of chill due to the clarity of his presentation. I
do have my own slant on _why_ causality is different for quantum
mechanics, one that would take quality time with a mathematical
physicist who loved complex analysis to work out the detail. Given the
current arc of my life (downward physically and professionally), I may
not get any of my own work published. Fortunately I am indifferent :-)
If it is all a technical delusion - it may certainly be the case - then
it had its rewards in coloring my world view. If some aspects had
truth inaccurately presented, then some other person will go over that
path again, straighten things up, and sell the ideas to intellectual
marketplace. Seams like a win-win.
doug
quaternions.com
Jose B. Almeida
Jul1-04, 04:48 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello Doug\n\n> Given the\n> current arc of my life (downward physically and professionally), I may\n> not get any of my own work published. Fortunately I am indifferent :-)\n> If it is all a technical delusion - it may certainly be the case - then\n> it had its rewards in coloring my world view. If some aspects had\n> truth inaccurately presented, then some other person will go over that\n> path again, straighten things up, and sell the ideas to intellectual\n> marketplace. Seams like a win-win.\n\nI don\'t agree with you. I am unable to publish my views on Euclidean\nRelativity (4-dimensional optics is my preferred designation) or even\nto see them posted in sci.physics.research but I refuse to give up. I\nam using the means at my disposal: internet, presentations in\nconferences, but I am confident the scientific community will do me\njustice one day.\n\nGreetings,\nJose\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello Doug
> Given the
> current arc of my life (downward physically and professionally), I may
> not get any of my own work published. Fortunately I am indifferent :-)
> If it is all a technical delusion - it may certainly be the case - then
> it had its rewards in coloring my world view. If some aspects had
> truth inaccurately presented, then some other person will go over that
> path again, straighten things up, and sell the ideas to intellectual
> marketplace. Seams like a win-win.
I don't agree with you. I am unable to publish my views on Euclidean
Relativity (4-dimensional optics is my preferred designation) or even
to see them posted in sci.physics.research but I refuse to give up. I
am using the means at my disposal: internet, presentations in
conferences, but I am confident the scientific community will do me
justice one day.
Greetings,
Jose
Pieter Kuiper
Jul2-04, 04:32 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>rivero@sol.unizar.es (alejandro.rivero) wrote:\n\n> A close method was to believe on the existence of a separate\n> research field, perhaps the spirit of "Foundations of Physics"\n> (2002 impact factor 0.443, Immediacy Index 0.086) and\n> "Foundations of Physics Letters" (0.495, 0.000).\n\nToday\'s mail had a request from Alwyn VanderWerwe to review a paper for\nFoundations of Physics. I think they have a strange policy:\n\n"Should you recommend the paper for publication without any modification,\nthere would be no need to elaborate. Should you however recommend its\nrejection, then it would be desirable that you specify the grounds on\nwhich you base your verdict."\n\nThis paper was 110 pages, no way I am going to read it, let alone work\non a referee report. I am a rather down-to-earth experimental physicist\nin solid state, not a member of the "foundations"-crowd. My only\nconnection with the journal is that I mentioned it in this newsgroup.\n\nOf course we remember that "Foundations of Physics" had a referee who\naccepted (but did not publish) Peter Lynds:\n<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lynds>\n\n--\n"Electrons damage the brain," said Farish. (Donna Tartt)\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>rivero@sol.unizar.es (alejandro.rivero) wrote:
> A close method was to believe on the existence of a separate
> research field, perhaps the spirit of "Foundations of Physics"
> (2002 impact factor .443, Immediacy Index .086) and
> "Foundations of Physics Letters" (0.495, .000).
Today's mail had a request from Alwyn VanderWerwe to review a paper for
Foundations of Physics. I think they have a strange policy:
"Should you recommend the paper for publication without any modification,
there would be no need to elaborate. Should you however recommend its
rejection, then it would be desirable that you specify the grounds on
which you base your verdict."
This paper was 110 pages, no way I am going to read it, let alone work
on a referee report. I am a rather down-to-earth experimental physicist
in solid state, not a member of the "foundations"-crowd. My only
connection with the journal is that I mentioned it in this newsgroup.
Of course we remember that "Foundations of Physics" had a referee who
accepted (but did not publish) Peter Lynds:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lynds>
--
"Electrons damage the brain," said Farish. (Donna Tartt)
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nPieter Kuiper <Pieter.Kuiper@msi.vxu.sweden> wrote:\n>\n> Of course we remember that "Foundations of Physics" had a referee who\n> accepted (but did not publish) Peter Lynds:\n\nHi Pieter,\n\nYour message was just forwarded to me. Actually, the paper was\npublished in FOP. It was initially rejected, and then accepted by\nanother journal. Due to a long wait before publication (over a year)\nand paper charges I hadn\'t been aware of beforehand though, I withdrew\nit and resubmitted to FOP. It was subsequently accepted and published\nin August last year. Looking at your e-mail address, one of the\nreferees actually came from your institution.\n\nIn respect to the paper, I actually just got back this morning from a\nconference at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, where I\npresented a summary of it, and then others presented papers on its\nimplications for mathematical modelling and quantum mechanics. It was\nparticularly pleasing for me, as I feel that the paper has been crying\nout for just that (further application to QM etc). I was also very\nhappy with what came out of it.\n\nBest wishes\n\nPeter\n\nPS: I just had a look at some old posts on this newsgroup about the\npaper and I, and some of them are very ill informed. It\'s a bit\ndisappointing, as just a little bit of research or a little more\nthought was all that was required.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Pieter Kuiper <Pieter.Kuiper@msi.vxu.sweden> wrote:
>
> Of course we remember that "Foundations of Physics" had a referee who
> accepted (but did not publish) Peter Lynds:
Hi Pieter,
Your message was just forwarded to me. Actually, the paper was
published in FOP. It was initially rejected, and then accepted by
another journal. Due to a long wait before publication (over a year)
and paper charges I hadn't been aware of beforehand though, I withdrew
it and resubmitted to FOP. It was subsequently accepted and published
in August last year. Looking at your e-mail address, one of the
referees actually came from your institution.
In respect to the paper, I actually just got back this morning from a
conference at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, where I
presented a summary of it, and then others presented papers on its
implications for mathematical modelling and quantum mechanics. It was
particularly pleasing for me, as I feel that the paper has been crying
out for just that (further application to QM etc). I was also very
happy with what came out of it.
Best wishes
Peter
PS: I just had a look at some old posts on this newsgroup about the
paper and I, and some of them are very ill informed. It's a bit
disappointing, as just a little bit of research or a little more
thought was all that was required.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.