How to write the abstract for a paper

[Zanket]

In all my years on the 'net, and I have been online since 1989 and read the Usenet back then, and have continued to come across various different physics forums, I have never, ever come across what you have described. You will understand if I have extreme skepticism of what you think is even a remote possibility. In my book, that possibility is zero.

This and your other posts here are good info. Thanks.

 

[Zanket]

Months? Most reviews are returned within two or three weeks, at least for the journals I submit to.

That's good to know. It is also nice to see, from looking around, that the full copyright need not be assigned over.

Since it has become so easy to submit everything electronically, there's no need for delay anymore waiting for reviewers to respond via mail.

Do you format your paper to the specifications of Journal A, submit, wait, and if rejected format your paper to the specifications of Journal B, submit, wait, and so on?

The rest of your recent posts make great points.

 

[Moonbear]

Do you format your paper to the specifications of Journal A, submit, wait, and if rejected format your paper to the specifications of Journal B, submit, wait, and so on?

Yes, because you can't submit to more than one journal at a time. Most times, my papers are accepted to the first journal (with revisions, which means the reviewers comments are minor issues that you need to address, but as long as you can make their suggested revisions, it will be accepted), though a few times I've needed to submit to a second journal when I've misgauged the interest of a particular journal for my work. It's just a matter of knowing what is published in the journals in your field to know which ones are most appropriate to submit your work to. That saves a lot of time. The formatting changes rarely require more than an hour or two of effort in changing the format for the references (just check the new format in EndNote and let it do the work; before good reference software, that used to be the biggest pain of resubmission having to change all the reference format by hand, especially if one journal wants them numbered in order of appearance and another wants author names and dates as internal citations and an alphabetical bibliography) and some picky details about section headings or what should or shouldn't be italicized. In addition, if I resubmit to a second journal, I'll incorporate the comments of the first reviewers to ensure it's as good as it can be going in (it would be foolish to ignore their suggestions).

 

[Zanket]

Excellent. Thanks Moonbear. You and ZapperZ have convinced me to give it the college try by submitting my paper to a peer-reviewed journal. I'll look into EndNote; my feeling is that as long as it’s clearly presented with all the basic ingredients (reproducible experimental confirmation, full references, etc.) then they should overlook that I used a 14-point font for a heading instead of a 13-point font, say, at least for the first pass. (Also the paper is longer, at 6K words, than I see some journals allowing—the thing seems as brief as I can put it.) The paper is intended to have broad implications for astrophysics. Can you (or ZapperZ) please advise me, if you have an idea, what is the best order of journals to submit such a paper to?

Another question, kinda hard to put: Being a minimalist, I take valid shortcuts. For example, I derive a new equation by showing logically that one expression can be substituted for another in a derivation of an equation in a referenced book from an authoritative source. My derivation is just a paragraph explaining the logic path, saving several pages over including the full derivation. Having not read a lot of physics papers, I don’t know whether this technique is typical or, if not, would be accepted. What do you think?

 

[Andre]

Andre's 'Venus rotation braking' idea

I happened to pass along here. and https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2974 is the thread BTW.

But this is exactly why such a forum such as this is useless in such a discussion.

I think not. At least one person in the field may consider it to have some merit.

Something like this is highly specific, and only the small number of professional working in that field would be qualified, or even have the ability, to judge such things and carry any remotely intelligent discussion.

There is a problem. We would need astro physicists, geophysicist, geologists, climatologists, chemical specialists and perhaps a few more and each of them claims not to have the expertise in the other areas to judge. So where do you begin as John Doe, who happened to toy a little with some thoughts.

So you see a planet, (observe a phenomenon), have a idea (conservation of energy), test it slightly (like in the thread), make "retrodictions" (facts that already have been found out, but you don't know that yet), see them come true. Start really studying the stuff, also exceeding several boundaries of specialism. Then you find out, you stumbled upon the jackpot when all the pieces fit together exactly. But how are you ever going to let the world know?

 

[ZapperZ]

There is a problem. We would need astro physicists, geophysicist, geologists, climatologists, chemical specialists and perhaps a few more and each of them claims not to have the expertise in the other areas to judge. So where do you begin as John Doe, who happened to toy a little with some thoughts.

So you see a planet, (observe a phenomenon), have a idea (conservation of energy), test it slightly (like in the thread), make "retrodictions" (facts that already have been found out, but you don't know that yet), see them come true. Start really studying the stuff, also exceeding several boundaries of specialism. Then you find out, you stumbled upon the jackpot when all the pieces fit together exactly. But how are you ever going to let the world know?

You send it to a peer-reviewed journal that publishes astrophysical papers! How do you think the REST of us do it? By "publishing" it on internet forums? I think even you are not that naive on this. Maybe it's just me, but I find that revealing such an idea on places such as this is extremely foolish.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

As long as the peer-reviewed journals give everyone a fair shake, I buy that. That is, as long as they don't summarily reject due to lack of credentials or having some initial atypical formatting or whatever other non-scientific reasoning.

Were I running a peer-reviewed journal, I would summarily reject for lack of credentials, maybe like arxiv.org does it, where you have to have a .edu suffix on your email address. That would seem economically prudent. After all, my journal's top priority is profit, not science.

 

[arildno]

Profit?

If you want to get rich in a hurry (or, at all), publishing a technical journal is a very bad career move..

 

[Zanket]

Surely they don't expect great wealth, but do have a top priority of meeting payroll and delivering some gravy to the owners. I would think sifting through reams of uncredentialed papers would be a path to bankruptcy.

 

[Andre]

Right, first of all, if it was to be rich&famous, it was indeed very foolish to discuss new ideas on a forum. But we're just talking about a hobby that has escalated. Now what do you do if you discover that you have stumbled upon something big. of course I have written publishers: "Dear Mr Crackpot, we regret to inform you that we are not interested in rubbish, regards, the editors"

So what do the editors know. It would take at least a day of grasping the idea and check the references before being able to judge it on it's merits. So I was merely looking for Prof Dr Sciencepope etc who would concede that the idea might be worth another thought.

But then again, you also have to face the scientific revolution mechanism of Thomas Kuhn trespassing on several terrains of expertise and tell the specialists that they are totally wrong.

So I realized from the onset that I did stand a change whatsoever. Only being called "extremely foolish" by whomever side you approach.

The biggest error I made, think, was assuming that "theory devellopment" stood for "theory devellopment" and not realizing that it was "crackpot trap".

At least I have done my duty and informed the world about a possible flaw of terrestrial planets that may or may not have huge impacts on Earth.

 

[ZapperZ]

As long as the peer-reviewed journals give everyone a fair shake, I buy that. That is, as long as they don't summarily reject due to lack of credentials or having some initial atypical formatting or whatever other non-scientific reasoning.

Were I running a peer-reviewed journal, I would summarily reject for lack of credentials, maybe like arxiv.org does it, where you have to have a .edu suffix on your email address. That would seem economically prudent. After all, my journal's top priority is profit, not science.

You will note that the two most prestigious journals for physics (Science and Phys. Rev. Lett.), are all run by NON-PROFIT organization. I have no idea about Nature, but I won't be suprised if it is also. Phys. Rev. Lett, in fact, is part of the Physical Review journal systems run by the American Physical Society, which is the professional society for physicists and physics enthusiasts (meaning you don't need a physics degree to be a member!).

The Arxiv site requires NO CREDENTIALS. However, after being innundated by clear quackery with their open system, they now require an "endorsement" of a new author by someone who already is part of their author database <waves hand>. If you look at some of the papers that got thru, even people without any valid credentials are there. However, note that Arxiv is NOT peer-reviewed!

I would also recommend you read the Barschall commision report on the list of top journals that make a significant impact on the body of knowledge in physics. You'll be surprised that the majority listed in the top 10 or 20 are published by non-profit, professional organizations! Check who publishes the Journal of Physics series, the European Journal of Physics series, etc.. etc.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Right, first of all, if it was to be rich&famous, it was indeed very foolish to discuss new ideas on a forum. But we're just talking about a hobby that has escalated. Now what do you do if you discover that you have stumbled upon something big. of course I have written publishers: "Dear Mr Crackpot, we regret to inform you that we are not interested in rubbish, regards, the editors"

1. Did you follow the "rules" set by the journal? And I'm not talking about scientific content, but rather the format being required, and how it was presented? Did you think all the papers that I wrote did not go through several dozens iterations by various people just to get it right BEFORE we sent it in for publication? Have you ever considered how MUCH we pay attention to not just what we say, but HOW we say it? Journal editors will reject immediately if your manuscript appear amateurish and illegible, because a typical reader of that journal know what format to expect when they pick up so-and-so journal. I certainly know what to expect when I pick up a PRL article.

2. Did you ever had it reviewed by someone else? Even the best of us give our manuscript to someone we trust and respect to see if (i) we're just not fooling ourselves in the importance of what we have and (ii) if what we are trying to convey is clear. Again, I have never written a paper that never went through unscathed after being passed around to several people. You would be SUPRISED that what you think is obvious, is actually very vague based on what you wrote. An editor, or even a referee, can reject a submission if it is confusing. A vague and confusing article does more harm than a wrong, but clear paper!

I can rattle off many other issues that your submission could be rejected without even going into the scientific content of it yet!

So what do the editors know. It would take at least a day of grasping the idea and check the references before being able to judge it on it's merits. So I was merely looking for Prof Dr Sciencepope etc who would concede that the idea might be worth another thought.

Keep in mind also that for many physics journals, they hire physics phd's, AND, assign associate editors for various fields of physics someone who majored in that field (look at the job opening ads by the Physical Review). So you are not getting some Joe Schmoe with an MBA who is judging and rejecting your paper.

But then again, you also have to face the scientific revolution mechanism of Thomas Kuhn trespassing on several terrains of expertise and tell the specialists that they are totally wrong.

And of course, anyone with an opinion should be taken seriously even if that opinion was formed out of ignorance? Let's get REAL here.

So I realized from the onset that I did stand a change whatsoever. Only being called "extremely foolish" by whomever side you approach.

The biggest error I made, think, was assuming that "theory devellopment" stood for "theory devellopment" and not realizing that it was "crackpot trap".

At least I have done my duty and informed the world about a possible flaw of terrestrial planets that may or may not have huge impacts on Earth.

And unfortunately, no ideas that solely appear on an internet open forum have many ANY significant dent in the body of knowledge of physics (even astrophysics). We're talking about a batting average of absolute zero here.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

You will note that the two most prestigious journals for physics (Science and Phys. Rev. Lett.), are all run by NON-PROFIT organization. I have no idea about Nature, but I won't be suprised if it is also. Phys. Rev. Lett, in fact, is part of the Physical Review journal systems run by the American Physical Society, which is the professional society for physicists and physics enthusiasts (meaning you don't need a physics degree to be a member!).

Good to know, thanks. I had seen that Science was non-profit, but figured that was atypical. Unless my masters-in-physics friend who's reviewing my paper now can show me I'm full of crap, I'll be submitting it to at least one journal, so I'll post my layman's experience with that here. I don't have other names for the "list 5 potential reviewers of your paper" required criteria, so I guess I'll put "unknown" for that and see what happens.

 

[arildno]

"Nature" is ultimately owned by the family-run German "Verlagsgruppe Georg v. Holzbrinck" (which, BTW, also owns the German newspaper "Die Zeit")

So "Nature" is a bit anomalous in this respect.

 

[Andre]

OK Here is the abstract. What would an editor do after reading that?

Venus’ planetary "design" and its likely complicated orbit and spinning interactions in the past may have caused one or more breakouts of the planet’s inner core spinning axis in relation to the spin axis of the mantle. This may have happened about one billion years ago and may have had catastrophic results. We intend to demonstrate that this hypothesis may generally explain all enigmatic features of Venus simultaneously.

The precession cycles and obliquity cycles of Venus may have been in a chaotic resonance interaction in the distant past. This may have caused extreme obliquity changes of the planet’s mantle. Also, precession cycles add up here to generate a high rate of change of the spin axis of the mantle of the planet. The planet’s solid inner core may not have been stabilized enough to follow these spin axis changes, and its own, individual spin axis may have departed from alignment with the mantle spin axis. This may have caused a dramatic braking effect where the spinning energy of the planet was converted to heat, reducing the spinning of the planet significantly.

The surface of the planet shows several apparent signs of extreme heat, which has been attributed to runaway greenhouse gas effect. It is recognized however, that not all thermal features can be explained either by volcanism or by greenhouse gas effect therefore also radiogenic heating was introduced but there are no further indications for such a aberration from the Earth like composition. An extreme internal heat as caused by the internal braking of the inner core would explain these features far more easily. Also a significant volcanic activity in the early period that diminished gradually as the planet cooled, could also point in this direction.

The atmosphere of Venus contains carbon on about the same order of magnitude as the total Earth lithosphere. This could suggest that all Venus carbon is in its atmosphere, to be explained by a general heating of the complete planet, enough to reduce all limestone type of rocks in the crust to carbon dioxide and calcium oxides. Greenhouse models continue to pose several problems about the current thermal state of the planet. These problems cease to exist however with the notion that the heat is still residual from that the big brake.

Consequently, Venus’ current slow spin state, the extreme heat of the planet and its dense atmosphere, as well as its enigmatic geologic surface features could all be explained by a single mechanism: the big brake.

 

[ZapperZ]

OK Here is the abstract. What would an editor do after reading that?

Can you point to me a journal that would tolerate an "abstract" THAT long with multiple paragraph? If I were an editor of that journal (for the sake of argument, let's choose PRL), my first impression would be:

1. This person haven't paid any attention to the journal guidelines

2. This person has no clue what is the purpose of an "abstract"

3. Based on 1 and 2, he/she has probably never published a scientific paper before

4. Since it is submitted in the current form, it also probably means that no one else was used either as a consultant, proof-reader, or advisor. This is especially true if it is from a single author.

Again, without even going into the content YET, there will be already bells and warning signs that something isn't kosher.

Zz.

 

[Andre]

Then why not post in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2974 what was wrong. That's what the thread was for. Moreover, the current paper is 20,000 words. So the abstract is far less than 5% the norm I know in my profession. But you have said it. It's so f*** toe-curling "counter-intuitive" that it can't be right. So don't bother, just another crackpot.

And which advisor did you think was going to read it for me. Nobody here has offered to do it or has declined when requested to do so.

 

[ZapperZ]

Then why not post in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2974 what was wrong. That's what the thread was for. Moreover, the current paper is 20,000 words. So the abstract is far less than 5% the norm I know in my profession. But you have said it. It's so f*** toe-curling "counter-intuitive" that it can't be right. So don't bother, just another crackpot.

And which advisor did you think was going to read it for me. Nobody here has offered to do it or has declined when requested to do so.

1. You ASKED what was wrong with the abstract. So I told you based SIMPLY on the format.

2. Unless I missed this, you are aiming for a physics/physical science journal. What does your "profession" have anything to do with the format of the journal that you were aiming for? You abide by the guideline of the journal - not the journal abiding by the guideline of your profession! I did say for the sake of argument, I used PRL as an example since I know it VERY well and its level of prestigue is unquestionable. (you DID know that PRL papers have a maximum of FOUR typeset pages, don't you?) Even the regular Physical Rev. journals have severe limits on how long an abstract can be.

3. Where did I say "...It's so f*** toe-curling "counter-intuitive" that it can't be right"? As I have stressed so far, without even going into the scientific content, if I see that kind of an abstract, a whole series of problems have already emerged without even sending this off to the referees.

4. Let me get this perfectly clear. You were hoping to find an "advisor" ON AN OPEN INTERNET FORUM to an article you were hoping to send to a peer-reviewed journal?! And you see nothing even remotely dubious about that?

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

And which advisor did you think was going to read it for me.

We've actually had a discussion about the Earth Sciences Forum in the Mentor's Private Forum. ZapperZ hit the nail right on the head when he said:

Something like this is highly specific, and only the small number of professional working in that field would be qualified, or even have the ability, to judge such things and carry any remotely intelligent discussion.

The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have Science Advisors who are experts in planetary sciences. If we did then we could accommodate you.

Nobody here has offered to do it or has declined when requested to do so.

1. No one here owes you an audience.
2. PF does not owe you a chance to air out your theories.

And even if the Science Advisors here did agree to review your work: Of what value would that review be? None of them are qualified to do it. Reviews from non-qualified personnel aren't going to be of any help to you. What good would it be for you to get approval from a biologist, an experimental physicists, and a string theorist? What weight would that carry among scientists in the field? None at all.

Have you looked for a Usenet group for experts to talk to? There must be one that is appropriate for you.

 

[ZapperZ]

And even if the Science Advisors here did agree to review your work: Of what value would that review be? None of them are qualified to do it. Reviews from non-qualified personnel aren't going to be of any help to you. What good would it be for you to get approval from a biologist, an experimental physicists, and a string theorist? What weight would that carry among scientists in the field? None at all.

Have you looked for a Usenet group for experts to talk to? There must be one that is appropriate for you.

Exactly, Tom. Which is why I cringe each time I read someone wanting a serious critique of some work they came up with on an open forum, even from some place as good as PF here. How in the world would that person know the credentials of the person offering the critique? If all one cares about is getting volunteers to read one's work, then go on Usenet as you've suggested or any of the other open forums. There's bound to be some joe schmoe who would volunteer to read anything! But is this the kind of review one wants?

People seem to forget that it requires a LOT of effort to be good at something, or to be considered an expert in a particular field. More often than not, it involves NOT just knowledge, but also the STATE of knowledge in that field at any given time! I could be very good in knowing the physics of tunneling, but if I do not follow the most recent research reports on that phenomenon, or its most recent use in the study of various materials, then I am someone who is out of touch with the current progress of that knowledge. I can only review a tunneling paper based on the physics, but I cannot tell you if someone else has done it, someone else has made newer results, or if someone else has falsified that particular line of work! It is why refereeing a paper can be damn time consuming - you sometime end up doing almost as much literature search as the authors!

Whatever the feelings about crackpottery or TD, or anything else, there is ONE thing that cannot be denied: you need someone who is an expert in THAT particular area of study to comment on your paper, and not some annonymous, credentially-unverified stiff that volunteered on an internet forum!

Zz.

 

[Andre]

You said:

there will be already bells and warning signs that something isn't kosher.

Which I interpreted like editors would do as:

It's so f*** toe-curling "counter-intuitive" that it can't be right. So don't bother, just another crackpot.

I was not aiming at any particular journal. I was aiming to write down a thesis using the scientific method and attempting to fill in all caveats, overthrowing hypotheses in different expertises. But the scope is way too big to fit into four pages when you have to explain why the delta gravity correlate so strongly with the geographic (errm Venographic) features especially the coronea, and you have to point out at the same time what the flaws are of Kastings solution to the mission oxygen problem and Laskars problem with the spinning slow down etc etc.

So again, trespassing on all those terrains is not going to help. And yes I was naive enough to think that a science forum would have enough qualified members to help solve the problems.

I'm the proverbal sadder and wiser man now. Not much chance and I hope to be still around in that 30 years we have to wait for these kinds of paradigm changes.

 

[Monique]

But the scope is way too big to fit into four pages when you have to explain why the delta gravity correlate so strongly with the geographic (errm Venographic) features especially the coronea, and you have to point out at the same time what the flaws are of Kastings solution to the mission oxygen problem and Laskars problem with the spinning slow down etc etc.

You could split the manuscript up into several papers. Also, journals have specific guidelines for the style of manuscripts; familiarize yourself with the guidelines and follow the style of published papers. A paper consisting of 20,000 words and such a long abstract really pushes the limits in my opinion.

 

[Nereid]

So again, trespassing on all those terrains is not going to help. And yes I was naive enough to think that a science forum would have enough qualified members to help solve the problems.

Andre, in the gentlest possible way, I must tell you that you were incredibly naive.

PF is a relatively new thing, and its members (which include Science Advisors, SuperMentors, and more) have very wide and diverse ages, experiences, interests, degrees, qualifications, and competencies.

HOWEVER, there is no certainty that there is even one with the relevant combination - plus incentive, motivation, etc - who could give you feedback (public or private) that would materially move your paper+idea along.

And FWIW, despite PF being one of the best on the internet (as I think you can personally attest), these fora will likely take a decade or three to evolve to more effectively cater to your needs.

I'm the proverbal sadder and wiser man now. Not much chance and I hope to be still around in that 30 years we have to wait for these kinds of paradigm changes.

With respect, and begging every reader's indulgence, this is c***.

The popularisation of the works of Kuhn, Popper*, etc has been a boon, yet also a curse.

ZapperZ has written - many times - about the appalling ineffectiveness of alternatives to the 'mainstream processes' (sidenote: I'm still keeping open a way of questioning/challenging/testing his assertions, in terms of their relevance to such an observationally-based science as astronomy) - the humbling 'take-home message' is that ideas are, in fact, almost valueless - what *really* matters is the ability to DO something with the ideas.

In the case of your idea (which you have presented several times here on PF), *IF* there were someone who could properly appreciate it (e.g. has the requisite expertise and incentive) *AND* who thought the idea had legs, the next you'd know about it would be either as a pre-print, a published paper, or (perhaps) a private communication seeking your approval/involvement ...

Back to Kuhn: subsequent to his landmark book, scholars in the field thoroughly trashed his thesis ... it turns out that science, in fact (according to scientific studies of science) doesn't work like that - it's an active field of (scientific) investigations, but Lakatos is closer - by far - to the mark that Kuhn.

*ironically, many scientists (still) spout Popper (he of 'falsification'), despite the fact that his ideas were among the easiest to show as inconsistent with what scientists actually DO! But then, most physicists are just as human as most philosophers, and have neither the time nor inclination to follow what the others are *actually* doing.

 

[ZapperZ]

You said:

Quote:
there will be already bells and warning signs that something isn't kosher.

Which I interpreted like editors would do as:

Quote:
It's so f*** toe-curling "counter-intuitive" that it can't be right. So don't bother, just another crackpot.

That is a VERY NASTY thing you did. If you have bothered to quote the ENTIRE SENTENCE, which was:

"Again, without even going into the content YET, there will be already bells and warning signs that something isn't kosher."

why did you conveniently ignored the "without even going into the content YET..." part? I clearly indicated that this was purely an evaluation on procedural grounds! I hate to think this is how you read and interpret the subject matter you are trying to write!

I was not aiming at any particular journal. I was aiming to write down a thesis using the scientific method and attempting to fill in all caveats, overthrowing hypotheses in different expertises. But the scope is way too big to fit into four pages when you have to explain why the delta gravity correlate so strongly with the geographic (errm Venographic) features especially the coronea, and you have to point out at the same time what the flaws are of Kastings solution to the mission oxygen problem and Laskars problem with the spinning slow down etc etc.

Then AIM for a particular journal, study its content, figure out what KIND of papers it publish, look at what caliber and level are expected, etc. etc.. Do not blame your ignorance of the procedural requirement as an excuse. We ALL had to figure these things out ourselves. You are no different nor special.

So again, trespassing on all those terrains is not going to help. And yes I was naive enough to think that a science forum would have enough qualified members to help solve the problems.

And how would you determined who is "qualified"? I could easily FOOL you into thinking that I'm "qualified". Would you like me to do that just so we could pacify you into thinking all is now well and your work was "reviewed" by a qualified person? Is this all that you want?

I'm the proverbal sadder and wiser man now. Not much chance and I hope to be still around in that 30 years we have to wait for these kinds of paradigm changes.

You were expecting that YOU are the impetus for such "paradigm change"? And do you think such Earth shaking revolution in thinking occurs as often as one changes underwear, or the appearence of a new diet fad? I'll say this again: get real!

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

That is a VERY NASTY thing you did. If you have bothered to quote the ENTIRE SENTENCE, which was:

"Again, without even going into the content YET, there will be already bells and warning signs that something isn't kosher."

why did you conveniently ignored the "without even going into the content YET..." part? I clearly indicated that this was purely an evaluation on procedural grounds! I hate to think this is how you read and interpret the subject matter you are trying to write!

And I'd agree with you on this point. Most journals I submit to do not allow an abstract over 2500 characters. If you submit four or five paragraphs of text, it shows disregard for instructions to authors everyone submitting to that journal must follow. If there's a 4 page limit, and someone submits the equivalent of 10 or 15 pages, or more, then it won't be considered; that's not a minor formatting issue, that's completely inappropriate for the journal's requirements. If something requires a longer explanation, then choose a journal amenable to longer articles. In my own field, there are journals that have pretty strict limits on length, where an article wouldn't be more than 4 or 5 pages long, and others where they'd eye you suspiciously if you submitted something LESS than 15 pages long, just due to the different focuses and topics those journals publish.

Then AIM for a particular journal, study its content, figure out what KIND of papers it publish, look at what caliber and level are expected, etc. etc.. Do not blame your ignorance of the procedural requirement as an excuse. We ALL had to figure these things out ourselves. You are no different nor special.

Yep, it's a waste of time if you want to publish something to write it without consideration of the journal you will submit it to. That's actually the FIRST step of the writing process, before there is a single word on paper, I discuss with my co-authors which journal is most suitable, and then write it for that journal, following all the guidelines to the letter.

And how would you determined who is "qualified"? I could easily FOOL you into thinking that I'm "qualified". Would you like me to do that just so we could pacify you into thinking all is now well and your work was "reviewed" by a qualified person? Is this all that you want?

This is my concern of using a forum such as this for such a purpose. Everyone here is anonymous. There are exactly three people at this site (as far as I recall anyway), who know my real identity, and only one of those with the wherewithall to confirm my credentials and areas of expertise. So, I could come along and say I was an expert in anything I wanted, and offer a critique that's completely worthless, and there would be no way to verify who I really am.

To Zanket: if you're planning to submit to a journal and whatever format you currently have your paper written in doesn't comply with the journal's requirements, no matter how minor, take the time to change the format. It's not so hard to follow the instructions, add numbers to your lines, re-size the font, use the correct section headers, format the bibliography correctly, etc. None of us submit anything until we and our co-authors can't find another mistake in it. Once I get a final draft written, it can take another month or two of passing it around to my co-authors and a few other colleagues to get input and suggested revisions befor I submit. You want to put your absolute best foot forward. Give it all the seriousness you would give a job interview. No matter how qualified you are for a job, you wouldn't walk into the interview in jeans and a t-shirt. Same thing for submitting a manuscript, no matter how good the content, you don't want to tarnish the reviewers' impression by submitting something riddled with typos or poorly formatted.

 

[Zanket]

To Zanket: if you're planning to submit to a journal and whatever format you currently have your paper written in doesn't comply with the journal's requirements, no matter how minor, take the time to change the format.

Will do--thanks for the advice. I kept the abstract short and to the point, only 150 words. Turns out the rest of it is less wordy than I thought; MS-Word seems to count some punctuation as words. From looking around at other papers, mine looks to be average size.

 

[Andre]

I really blew it, didn’t I. Just came here playing with some ideas and end up with the battle of authority. I do apologize if I hurt anybodies feelings.

Let’s try and analyse what happened here. I guess a perfect example of miscommunication, but it’s kind of hard to maintain an even disposition when the Zz first message to me is how foolish I am and how naïve. Such a qualification tends to ruffle some neck hairs and this is not a good advisor for constructive discussions. Especially since the only intention was at that time to share some ideas and perhaps build even a new paradigm after a thorough review of its merits. The misunderstanding here may be the perspective of a scientific point of view of a crackpot, wanting to press ideas and get rich&famous. I don’t know if that’s your impression, after all I was lured into the crackpot trap.

Not being a scientist however it could also be that my philosophy is slightly different. I think that every important newly discovered feature of Earth (albeit indirectly via Venus) should be common knowledge, not subject to the ambitions of the discoverer. I guess that this point of view makes it quite logical to discuss it in forums. Heck, I guess I’m not even sure if I want my name on that paper anymore if it could help boosting somebody else’s ambitions. After all, I need to move on, the main mystery-solving quest, the Pleistocene ice ages, is demanding full attention and its level of counter-intuitivity is some orders of magnitude higher. So, perhaps it would be better if I could refer to somebody else’s paper about the big brake mechanism of Venus.

About expert opinions and specialists, why the impression that I was claiming/requiring help for my personal benefit? Of course, before I started that thread I had already worked out some of the basic items until detail level 2 or "level 1.1”. I sort of hoped that the idea was picked up and perhaps it could have been a corporate PF project exploring levels 1.1.1. and 1.1.1.1. Needless to say that I lack any expertise on those.

I seem to observe that nowadays we have mainly highly qualified and specialized explorers of level 1.1.1.1.1, who usually have little affection with items 2.1 or 5.4. This seems to be the core of the problem. Who is expert on items 1.1.1 up until and including 5.5.5? He/she would be able to judge the merits of spinning physics, hydrothermal, hydrodynamics, geophysics, geochemical and geographic processes. I don’t think that such a person exists anymore. At least, I didn’t find him. The closest one fitting that description may be Prof Richard Muller of Berkeley but he ignored me consistently after a first contact.

On the other hand, Could it be that the specialized quest for the truth on items 1.1.1.1.1. and 1.1.1.1.2 misses the truth that seems so obvious when observing the interaction between layman’s level items 1, 2, 3 and 4.? And if this idea is obviously not consistent with pre-grad textbook (Outdated et al, 1978), could it be that this textbook requires some serious actualization? Something like fitting shapes of continents for instance that triggered both Alfred Wegener’s paradigm change about plate tectonics and Kuhn’s observations about paradigm shifts (Sorry Nereid, with all due respect, but if Kuhn was following this thread, wouldn’t he be happily ticking off his observations? Please, by all means, proof him wrong.)

Monique, thanks for the constructive idea. The subject can be split up indeed, provided that the sequel remains intact and that the editors/reviewers/readers are well aware of the complete scope of the topic. If you’d start reading halfway it would not make sense whatsoever.

 

[matt grime]

Are you still interested in comments on your "abstract"?

If so...

It is far too long (the abstract for the 90,000 word article I'm working on at the moment is restricted to no more than 300 words), filled with observations about what "may" have happened. I don't want to read an abstract that indicates the entire paper is speculative nonsense without justification. A simple - we make some reasonable assumptions and under these assumptions we are able to show/the evidence indicates/the most plausible explanation is... is better. I will then, in the paper, get to read the assumptions, look at the evidence, and decide if your conclusions are justified. If you like, your own abstract indicates that you aren't sure of your own article. Its puncutation needs work, too.

 

[Andre]

Sure, we can shorten the abstract or perhaps enlarge it to be the first general overview article of the sequence.

About expressing doubt or be very positive.You could be right however I mimicked my http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/03/12/wo_muller121703.asp?p=2:

In most fields of science, researchers who express the most self-doubt and who understate their conclusions are the ones that are most respected.

So what would be the best?

 

[Monique]

I agree with mattgrime, looking at the following excerpt from the abstract:

Venus’ planetary "design" and its likely complicated orbit and spinning interactions in the past may have caused one or more breakouts of the planet’s inner core spinning axis in relation to the spin axis of the mantle. This may have happened about one billion years ago and may have had catastrophic results. We intend to demonstrate that this hypothesis may generally explain all enigmatic features of Venus simultaneously.

The precession cycles and obliquity cycles of Venus may have been in a chaotic resonance interaction in the distant past. This may have caused extreme obliquity changes of the planet’s mantle. Also, precession cycles add up here to generate a high rate of change of the spin axis of the mantle of the planet. The planet’s solid inner core may not have been stabilized enough to follow these spin axis changes, and its own, individual spin axis may have departed from alignment with the mantle spin axis. This may have caused a dramatic braking effect where the spinning energy of the planet was converted to heat, reducing the spinning of the planet significantly.

It really weakens your arguments when you use 'may' so much. A good scientist acknowledges the weaknesses in a hypothesis by mentioning what they are. Overstating your conclusions is not good, doubting your own conclusions is not good either.

When you use may, it seems that the effect is random. You should say 'if this hypothesis is true, then the following will happen'. Afterall, you are writing to persuade the reader that your hypothesis is correct.

 

[Moonbear]

OK Here is the abstract. What would an editor do after reading that?

Andre, I'll give you a quick and dirty commentary, but just from the abstract, I'd say it is nowhere near ready for publication. Since you've asked, I have no choice than to be blunt, it reads like a freshman lab report, not a scholarly thesis.

First, nearly every sentence includes the word "may" or "could," which means it reads as little more than hand-waving. The hypothesis statement is vague and wishy-washy, not to mention hard to find (the first paragraph where you say the hypothesis is contained does not actually contain what appears to be the crux of your hypothesis; it is buried and scattered among several of the later paragraphs). As has already been discussed, it is far too long. Beyond just being long, it rambles on without making any real point. The vast majority is unnecessary filler, and nothing is included to indicate you have any actual evidence or support for your hypothesis that will be discussed within the body of the manuscript. There are grammatical errors as well, but I'm not going to bother with those.

Venus’ planetary "design" (vague)[/color] and its likely[/color] complicated orbit and spinning interactions in the past may have[/color] caused one or more (if you're not sure how many times, how are you sure it happened at all?)[/color] breakouts of the planet’s inner core spinning axis in relation to the spin axis of the mantle. This may have[/color] happened about one billion years ago and may have[/color] had catastrophic results (such as?)[/color]. We intend to demonstrate (how?)[/color] that ]this hypothesis (what part of the above is the hypothesis? It's all "maybe this maybe that," with no testable statement of hypothesis)[/color] may generally explain all enigmatic features (all?)[/color] of Venus simultaneously.

The precession cycles and obliquity cycles of Venus may[/color] have been in a chaotic resonance interaction in the distant past. This may[/color] have caused extreme obliquity changes of the planet’s mantle. Also, precession cycles add up here (where?)[/color] to generate a high rate of change of the spin axis of the mantle of the planet (change of what? rotational velocity? angle? length?)[/color]. The planet’s solid inner core may[/color] not have been stabilized enough to follow these spin axis changes, and its own, individual spin axis may[/color] have departed from alignment with the mantle spin axis. This may[/color] have caused a dramatic braking effect where the spinning energy of the planet was converted to heat, reducing the spinning of the planet significantly. (This paragraph seems to contain more of your hypothesis statement than the introductory paragraph, but still presented too tentatively.)[/color]

(I'm going to stop doing a line-by-line commentary at this point and just hit a few main points...you should get the idea already.)[/color]
The surface of the planet shows several apparent signs of extreme heat, which has been attributed to runaway greenhouse gas effect. It is recognized however, that not all thermal features can be explained either by volcanism or by greenhouse gas effect therefore also radiogenic heating was introduced but there are no further indications for such a aberration from the Earth like composition. An extreme internal heat as caused by the internal braking of the inner core would explain these features far more easily. (But, do you have evidence this IS what happened? Nothing in the abstract suggests you do.)[/color] Also a significant volcanic activity in the early period that diminished gradually as the planet cooled, could also point in this direction.

The atmosphere of Venus contains carbon on about the same order of magnitude as the total Earth lithosphere. This could suggest that all Venus carbon is in its atmosphere, (No, it doesn't. Lack of any carbon in the core and crust would suggest it is all in the atmosphere...if that's true.)[/color] to be explained by a general heating of the complete planet, enough to reduce all limestone type of rocks in the crust to carbon dioxide and calcium oxides. Greenhouse models continue to pose several problems about the current thermal state of the planet. These problems cease to exist however with the notion that the heat is still residual from that the big brake.

Consequently, Venus’ current slow spin state, the extreme heat of the planet and its dense atmosphere, as well as its enigmatic geologic surface features could all be explained by a single mechanism: the big brake.

Most of what is written above does not belong in an abstract. Even without knowing the subject, I can tell you that. In an abstract, state clearly, with only about one to three sentences each: clear statement of hypothesis (1 sentence), approach or method of testing hypothesis (1-2 sentences), most significant results/observations (1-3 sentences), and conclusion (1 sentence).

 

[Andre]

Great, now we are getting somewhere, thanks for the help Moonbear, Monique. Let’s try a complete different approach

Terrestrial planets have a complicated multi-layered structure (there must be a better word) consisting of a solid inner core a fluid outer core and a mantle. The difference in gyroscopic behaviour (angular momentum) results in complicated reactions to orbital perturbations. Several factors like precession and obliquity resonance under influence of gravitation of the solar system can (will, could may) lead to break out of the inner core spinning axis. Here we show that this behavior has lead to the current spinning stop of the planet Venus. We content that not only the lack of spinning but also the high temperatures, the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere and the specific geologic history are the ultimate (logical) consequence of such (an) event(s).

 

[arildno]

This is far more to the point, Andre!
However, you should try to make it clear in your very first sentence what you are talking about.

As a first sentence example:

"We propose that several puzzling features of Venus is the outcome of a simple braking mechanism due to an initial difference in the angular momenta of the mantle and the inner core, respectively."


Don't regard my statements in any way as authorative, though..

 

[Monique]

Big improvement Andre! The purpose of an abstract is to draw a reader in; convince him that the article discusses subjects of interest to him, don't actually discuss anything in the abstract itself. Moonbear gave some great advise and I can see that you followed it. I haven't read your manuscript, but you should keep everything to the point and formal as well.

 

[arildno]

A few pointers with regards to an abstract (again, just my opinion):
1) Do not argue for your theory here, present the basic mechanism
2) State that this represents an advantage with respect to other theories, in that it is a single mechanism which explains several features (enumerate these) whereas other theories (REFERENCES!) can only explain some of these features


Arguments and doubts are to be given in the main text.

 

[Andre]

Ok, some collated comments compiled here:

"The main puzzling features of planet Venus have been attributed to several isolated, sometimes conflicting hypotheses. Here we show that a single mechanism can do better. The gyroscopic response differences of the solid inner core, fluid outer core and mantle to orbital perturbations can result into a break out of the inner core spinning axis. This behaviour has lead to the current spinning stop of the planet Venus. We content that this also explains the high temperatures, the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere and the specific geologic history."

I'll brush up the paper a little the next few days and then pm a link to it to whomever is interested including my kind advisors, of course, just for entertainment. Please don't feel obliged to review it. I'm not discouraging it, though.

Don't worry about references. Have to bring down the list from some 8 pages to something manageable.

 

[arildno]

Ok, some collated comments compiled here:

"The main puzzling features of planet Venus have been attributed to several isolated, sometimes conflicting hypotheses. Here we show that a single mechanism can do better. The gyroscopic response differences of the solid inner core, fluid outer core and mantle to orbital perturbations can results into a break out of the inner core spinning axis. This behaviour has lead to the current spinning stop of the planet Venus. We content that this also explains the high temperatures, the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere and the specific geologic history."

I'll brush up the paper a little the next few days and then pm a link to it to whomever is interested including my kind advisors, of course, just for entertainment. Please don't feel obliged to review it. I'm not discouraging it, though.

Don't worry about references. Have to bring down the list from some 8 pages to something manageable.

This is the way to go, Andre!
I'll just weed out some errors in grammar and spelling, plus something which might be better:
"The main puzzling features of planet Venus have been attributed to several isolated, sometimes conflicting hypotheses. Here we show that a single mechanism CAN BE SEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THEM.

The gyroscopic response differences of the solid inner core, fluid outer core and mantle to orbital perturbations can RESULT IN a break-out of the inner core spinning axis. This behaviour has lead to the current spinning stop of the planet Venus. We CONTEND that this also explains the high temperatures, the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere and the specific geologic history OF VENUS."

 

[Andre]

Thanks Arildno

Some questions of Moonbear.

caused one or more (if you're not sure how many times, how are you sure it happened at all?) breakouts of the planet’s inner core spinning axis in relation to the spin axis of the mantle.

We're talking about different spin axis directions where each spin axis follows a specific precession cone. This means that eventually the axes will realign until the next event. Such an event may have lasted 50,000 - 100,000 years projecting the Earth precession rate on Venus, without moon but closer to the sun. Think of a couple of thousand of such events in (several?) billion years.

An extreme internal heat as caused by the internal braking of the inner core would explain these features far more easily. (But, do you have evidence this IS what happened? Nothing in the abstract suggests you do.)

We are dealing with a lot of details, one of them is a strongly declining thermal gradient of the crust between the oldest tesserae terrains compared to the youngest formations and multiple signs of high temperature beyond the solidus of basalt like this:

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_60370.htm
(one of the "retrodictions")
Update: coming to think of it. The hypothesis was born in June 2003. That abstract is of November so it was actually a genuine prediction.

The atmosphere of Venus contains carbon on about the same order of magnitude as the total Earth lithosphere. This could suggest that all Venus carbon is in its atmosphere, (No, it doesn't. Lack of any carbon in the core and crust would suggest it is all in the atmosphere...if that's true.)

Interesting point and even that would not suffice as the temperature and pressure appear to be on a chemical equilibrium for CO2 and silicates to form compounds. So some CO2 may reenter the soil. However, none of the satellite analyses appear to have come up with carbonates.

BTW About the layman talk, I had reshaped the story into popular book form and changed all the "bicycles" to "bikes". But if we need bicycles, so be it.

Edit to add link

 

[Nereid]

To readers of this thread:

This has been split from an older thread ("Theory Development") that is still in the PF Feedback section. The editing (of the thread; no posts have been edited) is, necessarily, rather blunt.

However, there is (IMHO) some good advice on how to go about writing the abstract of a paper (and the paper itself, how to choose a journal, ...).

Suggestions on how to further edit the thread (not the content) to improve its value here in A&CG would be welcome.

 

[jma2001]

Wow, a thread that was actually upgraded from "theory development", how often has that happened?

But seriously, there is a lot of good advice in this thread and I am glad to see it moved to a more appropriate location. I will be very interested to hear how Zanket and Andre do with their journal submissions.

 

[matt grime]

Sure, we can shorten the abstract or perhaps enlarge it to be the first general overview article of the sequence.
About expressing doubt or be very positive.You could be right however I mimicked my http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/03/12/wo_muller121703.asp?p=2:
So what would be the best?

There's a difference between being cautious and admitting something is only a theory and not being convincing in your argument.

Changing the words a little, your abstract might read:

We may be the reincarnation of a dairy maid. We may have memories of a prelife, we may think other people also have undergone reincarnation, there may be some people who have interesting stories, and may have been involved in a plot to assassinate Catherine the Great...


So why not try something like: Explain you offer an alternative account of XXXXX (whatever it is you're talking about - I don't understand it at all). Briefly describe hypothesis, what may be deduced from it, and possibly indicate what this does that the established theory doesn't allow for.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wow, a thread that was actually upgraded from "theory development", how often has that happened?

This thread was titled "TD", but lived in the Feedback forum, not in TD itself.

The discussion on writing an abstract for a scientific paper is valuable enough to warrant dedicated attention.

 

[Moonbear]

Good Move!

This thread was titled "TD", but lived in the Feedback forum, not in TD itself.

The discussion on writing an abstract for a scientific paper is valuable enough to warrant dedicated attention.

Thanks to the mentors for splitting this out into a separate topic. This is a good exercise for anyone, to see where the abstract started out as something rather unweildy and unconvincing, and with just a few iterations of revisions, is already shaping up into something far more enticing.

Of course, I don't know the subject matter well enough to advise beyond stylistic points here (and if my stylistic suggestions alter the meaning because something has a specific technical usage in this field, then you'll have to judge which of my suggestions to ignore at this stage).

Andre, it's already looking MUCH better!

Working off arildno's revisions (my changes/suggestions in red):

The main puzzling features of planet Venus have been attributed to several isolated, sometimes conflicting hypotheses. Here we show that a single mechanism CAN (deleted:BE SEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR) (replace with: explain) [/color]ALL OF THEM.

The gyroscopic response differences of the solid inner core, fluid outer core and mantle to orbital perturbations can RESULT IN (would it be correct to change that to "...have resulted in..."? Is this something that you have experimental evidence for...yours or a review of others' prior papers...that you will describe within the body of the paper?)[/color] a break-out of the inner core spinning axis. This behaviour has led[/color] to the current spinning stop (not sure what that phrase means: "current spinning stop"...please clarify or reword...depending what you mean, this sentence may need to be reworked a bit more)[/color] of the planet Venus. We CONTEND that this also explains the high temperatures, the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere and the specific geologic history OF VENUS.

 

[arildno]

Moonbear certainly improved my suggestion.

I agree that it would be best to delete the "responsible"-bit, but here's why I chose not to use "explain":

Can a physical mechanism "explain"?
I would say that a theory "explains", whereas a mechanism "accounts for"
(I was unsure about the English here..)

 

[ZapperZ]

Consistent with being the ogre that I am (no smart comment from you, Moonbie dear!), I will say that I'm very weary about what's going on here.

Initially, the issue what was being addressed for the FORMAT of the abstract. I know that I was addressing just that. Why? Because it is meaningless to address the CONTENT of the abstract without first reading the whole paper AND understanding the main points that are being conveyed. One typically writes the outline of the paper (listing all the important points/figures/data to be highlighted), then the paper, and THEN, at the end, the abstract. One does this while keeping in mind the specific journals one is thinking of submitting. Notice I said JOURNALS, not journal, because often, one has a shortlist of a few journals that one has narrowed down.

Even after doing all this, things get changed, revised, and rewritten, especially when there is more than one author, which in my case, is all the time. But the point I'm trying to get across is that one very seldom can make content judgement of an abstract to be submitted till one has (i) read the whole paper and (ii) read the FINAL version of the paper.

There is one thing that I find rather puzzling. In doing something like writing a research paper, one presumably had to do a lot of reading of other previous publications in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals. After all, one doesn't cite the parameters of Venus based on what one read off the pages of the NY Times, or the astrology pages from The National Enquirer (only a quack would do something like this). So I expect someone writing such a paper to have read not one, not two, not even three, but several research papers cross many different scholarly journals. So my question is, didn't one pay any attention to the format, structure, and "quality level" of those papers being published by those specific journals? I mean, these things that are being mentioned here shouldn't be new, or surprising, should it?

Just exactly what papers and journals you are using as references in this paper you're writing? Have you paid any attention to the format and content level of these papers? Are you aware that many journals have their own templates that authors can use to produce almost a typeset quality of their manuscript as a guide in terms of formatting and length? The Physical Review journals even have their own LaTex format call RevTex that anyone can use as a document definition.

I am fully aware that anyone starting to write such a thing will need to learn stuff on how to do this and do this well. I am just puzzled why we have to go this far back, considering that there is already many available guidelines, presumably already seen by anyone who has done any considerable "research" work or any literature search on sources. There is seldom a clearer lesson than looking at an EXAMPLE of one.

Zz.

 

[Monique]

There is seldom a clearer lesson than looking at an EXAMPLE of one.

I completely agree with you here, and I have given the same advice. When writing my first manuscript I downloaded papers similar in content and followed the style of those, hardly any comments came back from the co-authors.

As for the abstract, you are right that there is no way that we can judge the value of the content of the abstract, when the content of the paper is unknown. But you must admit that the style of the abstract has changed considerable to one that is acceptable. There are some lessons to be learned, such as following the style of hypothesis, approach of testing hypothesis, results/observations and conclusions. And all the other advise that has been given.

 

[Andre]

). So I expect someone writing such a paper to have read not one, not two, not even three, but several research papers cross many different scholarly journals. So my question is, didn't one pay any attention to the format, structure, and "quality level" of those papers being published by those specific journals? I mean, these things that are being mentioned here shouldn't be new, or surprising, should it?

You may have noticed that the transformation of the abstract took little time. Unfortunately we had decided to write the "book" more in layman style, including the abstract. Reworking a bit now.

A small selection of the papers that we studied:

Schaber, et al 1992. Geology and distribution of impact craters on Venus—what are they telling us? J. Geophys. Res. 97, 13257–13301.

Shen, M., Zhang, C.Z., 1989. Dynamical evolution of the rotation of Venus. Earth, Moon, Planets 43, 275–287.

Stevenson, D,J, 2002 Planetary magnetic fields Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 208, Issues 1-2 , 15 March 2003, Pages 1-11

Williams, G.E., 1989. Tidal rhythmites: geochronometers for the ancient Earth–Moon system. Episodes 12 (3), 162–171.

Williams, G.E., 1993. History of the Earth’s obliquity. Earth Sci. Revi. 34,

Hunten, R.J. Philips (Eds.), Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind Environment, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, pp. 1087–1124.

Zahnle, K.J., Kasting, J.F., Pollack, J.B., 1988. Evolution of a steam atmosphere during Earth’s accretion. Icarus 74, 62–97.

 

[ZapperZ]

You may have noticed that the transformation of the abstract took little time. Unfortunately we had decided to write the "book" more in layman style, including the abstract. Reworking a bit now.

I don't mean to be a pain in the rear end here (or maybe I do), but maybe you can explain something to me or correct my wrong impression.

1. I am guessing that you haven't published anything in this subject area.

2. I am also guessing that, from (1), that your "idea" hasn't appeared anywhere else and that this is the first introduction of it.

3. What I don't understand is, given (1) and (2), shouldn't you first "test" it out in a shorter paper or two just to establish a foothold in the appropriate scientific community before trying to publish a "book"? How often have you found one single paper that contains ALL the "revolutionary" ideas? Even Special Relativity, General Relativity, QM, etc. had to take baby steps along the way into their current form.

4. Very seldom is the "complete" idea is born in a single, initial paper. Most things aren't this easy. What commonly happens is that a small part of an idea is presented first, and presented with convincing evidence that it is valid for some particular application or example. Then it is generalized and made even more applicable to other systems in subsequent papers, etc. This allows for people to gradually be convinced of its validity. It will also tell you if you're on the right track, because if your initial paper encountered any "show stoppers", you won't have wasted time pursuing it. Maybe you have to make major revision to the model etc... but at least you know certain things have to be adjusted, as any model should. Thinking what you came up with the first time is correct and has got to be correct is usually a fatal attitude.

Zz.

 

[Andre]

1. Yes
2. Yes it has run in a couple of forums, including: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=242070
3. I don't know. It happened literally like this: thinking about the Venus, why is it not spinning and why is it so hot and why all those extinc volcanoes. I was already studying the enigmatic coupling of Earth inner solid core outer fluid core and the mantle during geomagnetic reversals that was explained as turbulent chaotic flow in the outer core. Then the simple tought: spinning energy converted to heat. Just a flash: cause: inner core spin axis break out due to precession differences. That's the whole hypothesis in a nutshell. It was only then that the real study started, fitting all the pieces together. That was an incredible experience. It just all made sense all of a sudden.

Almost annoying to see the stumbling around in the dark. One explorer proposes the extreme ancient heat to be explained by excessive radiogenic 40K decay but fails to see that the amount and and ratio of 40Ar is not supporting that as well as the strong thermal gradient of the last million years.

We have the missing oxygen that as bystander correctly had put, could never have been taken up (oxydizing) by the lithosphere due to the dense CO2 atmosphere acting as a strong fire extinguisher.

Correia needs a dense atmosphere for the slow down of the spinning but Kasting takes it away for formulating his moist greenhouse hypothesis.

and so on

Of course you could stop at formulating the hypothesis and then suggest further testing it against the literature. But would that be enough to convince anybody that such a scenario would even be remotely possible to continue research? Leaving all those -almost amusing- controversies to others to find out? And as I said I'm only exploring level2, items 1.1 to 5.5 I'm not even starting to dream of modeling the braking mechanism. So there is still a lot of studying ahead.

 

[Andre]

Ok another version of the abstract. I have attempted to answer to Moonbears questions. I also believe that the size would be limited to 100 words for many journals. So, including the word "abstract". We managed to do that.

ABSTRACT.

The main puzzling features of planet Venus have been attributed to several isolated, sometimes conflicting hypotheses. Here we show that a single mechanism can explain all of them.

The gyroscopic response differences of the solid inner core, fluid outer core and mantle to orbital perturbations can result in drifting away of the inner core spinning axis from alignment to the main spin axis. This behaviour has contributed significantly to the current slow retrograde spinning of the planet Venus. We contend that this also explains the high temperatures, the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere and the specific geologic history of Venus.

I'm presently condensing the 15 pages about the spinning pecularities like precession cycles, obliquity cycles, interaction, the composition of as planet and the dynamics of all those elements combined in the big brake hypothesis. I wonder how many PhD theses could result from that when descending into the details. The first question is of course what to explain and what not. If I explain too much I may insult the specialists but if I would explain too little I risk loosing the biologists, palynologists, climatologists, etc. Whatsay?