How to write the abstract for a paper

[Moonbear]

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.

Meh, that will be temporarily treated by Saturday. And your comments were atypically un-ogrish.

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.

Agreed. Without ever having read the manuscript, I have no idea if our comments are on track at all with what is actually being presented, so we have to limit discussion here to stylistic points and as an exercise for illustration. Andre, don't rely solely on our advice, which is based only on your former version of the abstract. If there is a problem that makes it inconsistent with the text, then our advice is going to be useless for the actual abstract you need to write, but should give you some pointers of how your thoughts can be condensed and organized better into an appropriate format.

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.

Yes, the abstract is always the LAST thing to write. There's no point writing it if you don't know what direction the paper has taken yet.

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.

Agreed. And those would also be the best indicators of the stylistic requirements for the journals in that particular field.

I have to disagree to some extent about submitting manuscripts formatted according to the journal typesetting though. Perhaps that is done in physics, but I'd send back a manuscript sent to me in that format. In my field, manuscripts are always double spaced, numbered lines, 1 inch margins, 12 pt font. Reviewers want room to jot notes to themselves as they read. The only thing that needs to conform to the final formatting requirements are figures if the journal doesn't reduce them themselves (those requirements vary considerably from journal to journal).

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.

There is a difference between realizing your format doesn't fit the "norm" and knowing how to write it so it does. I'm not sure what is the case here. If you read a lot of articles, as you must have if you are at the stage of writing up your ideas, then you must see what the style requirements are (and if you aren't sure, pick up the latest issue of that journal and flip through it). But, certainly it's typical for a student to look at their own work and say, "How can I possibly fit all of what I want to say into only 2500 characters?!" First versions of abstracts by a novice writer are either overly long and need a good deal of condensing, or are incredibly brief and lacking in sufficient detail. I've seen both extremes and both are common novice mistakes. However, that is why students don't write papers without an advisor to point out the mistakes and guide them toward the correct path.

Oh, and not only do you need to have read papers to write a paper, you need to have read tons of articles before you even choose the project you're going to work on! How do you know what has and hasn't been done for you to find your own work to do if you haven't read a good chunk of literature before starting?

 

[ZapperZ]

I have to disagree to some extent about submitting manuscripts formatted according to the journal typesetting though. Perhaps that is done in physics, but I'd send back a manuscript sent to me in that format. In my field, manuscripts are always double spaced, numbered lines, 1 inch margins, 12 pt font. Reviewers want room to jot notes to themselves as they read. The only thing that needs to conform to the final formatting requirements are figures if the journal doesn't reduce them themselves (those requirements vary considerably from journal to journal).

Oh, no. I mean the typesetting capability is useful only for the AUTHORS, not the referees. The editors of the Physical Reviews will reformat the manuscript into the double-spaced, single-column documents before sending it to the referees (usually electronically). They never send those in the Journal typeset format.

The reason why they make available the typeset format is so the authors can roughly judge how long the paper will be. This is useful especially for PRL where there is a 4-page limit, and in cases where the authors need to know roughly the publication charges. In case where the paper is very long even when there's no page limit, the editors may suggest to the referee to judge if the length can be reduced.

Zz.

 

[Andre]

Now, would this make sense as the introduction of the short paper of some four pages?

Introduction

Venus is spinning slowly backwards or “retrograde”. This awkward condition was discovered in 1962 using radar measurement (Smith, Goldstein, Carpenter). A total true rotation around its axis (sidereal day) would take 243 days whilst the orbit of the planet takes only 225 days. This combination results in a solar day length of some 117 Earth days. This unusual situation has lead to numerous studies investigating the spinning of Venus. Possible scenarios include an original prograde spinning of the planet followed by some dragging mechanism as a result of spinning perturbations and atmospheric tidal drag. This could have caused the spinning to slow down and then reverse or alternately the planet to flip over, also effectively causing the spinning to reverse. (Go1dreich & Peale 1970, Yoder 1995, Neron de Surgy & Laskar 1997 Correia & Laskar 2003-referred to as the CL03 model). However these scenarios lead to a rather small exchange of angular momentum. Consequently the initial spinning rate of Venus could not have exceeded 3,5 days per revolution (CL03) to reach the current state within the time constrain of the lifespan of the solar system.

Alternately the planet could have been born retrograde, assuming that the spinning direction would be at random, following a multiple impact scenario of planetesimals (Hartmann & Vai11986, Lissauer & Safronov 1991, Dones & Tremaine 1993, Lissauer et al 1995,2000). These hypothesis seem not to be completely matching the earlier dust cloud model, slowly forming planets, which spin prograde as a consequence of the conservation of momentum. This scenario would have given Venus an initial prograde spinning rate of some 18 hours (MacDonald 1967).

Here we propose a mechanism, that would be compatible with such an initial spinning condition, considering Venus initially having similar orbit and spinning characteristics like Earth, however without moon. It is actually a (major) modification of the CL03 model, assuming that the spinning axis of the solid inner core of Venus would not follow the spinning perturbations of the planets mantle.

A secondary consequence of such a scenario would be a high braking effect, dissipating the spinning energy into heat. We propose that this heat can account for the present enigmatic features of the planet

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's my critique of the opening portion :

Introduction

Venus is spinning slowly backwards or “retrograde”. This awkward condition (1) was discovered in 1962 using radar measurement (Smith, Goldstein, Carpenter)(2). A total true rotation around(3) its axis (sidereal day)(4) would take 243 days whilst the orbit of the planet takes only 225 days. This combination results in a solar day length of some(5) 117 Earth days. This unusual situation has lead to numerous studies investigating the spinning of Venus. Possible scenarios(6) include an original prograde spinning of the planet followed by some dragging mechanism as a result of spinning perturbations and atmospheric tidal drag. ...

(1) - stylistic - A theory can be awkward if it predicts results not seen in experiment. Can a well quantified phenomenon be awkward ? I would say the condition was 'unusual' or 'unexpected', not 'awkward'.

(2) - convention - If this is a citation of a published work, provide the reference in the conventional format (ie: include the year of publication within brackets or include a reference number or whatever is the accepted convention in the field).

(3) - scientific language - Physicist specifically talk of rotation about an axis. I would imagine the same is true of celestial dynamics.

(4) - necessity - Anyone in the field is aware of the definition of a siderial day/period. Try to minimize how often you want to state the obvious.

(5) - colloquialism - "Some" is definitely a no-no. First off, is there doubt about the actual length of the solar day (accurate to 1 solar day) ? If there is, use 'about', rather than 'some'. If not, do not indicate that there is uncertainty about this number.

(6) - language, style , content - The start of the sentence promises multiple "scenarios", but the rest of it provides only one. Is this scenario your claim, or is it from previously published works (by others) ? If this is the accepted mechanism (as far as the community is concerned) acknowledge this. Do not cast doubt upon it unless you follow it up with something that justifies the need for this doubt.

 

[NileQueen]

Good advice Gokul.

(4) - necessity - Anyone in the field is aware of the definition of a siderial day/period. Try to minimize how often you want to state the obvious.

Perhaps Andre is specifying that it is a sidereal and not a solar day.

 

[Andre]

Thanks Gokul, for those valuable hints. Indeed NQ it's the question of balance between the obvious for specialists and clarity for the others. However when I was actualisating the core mantle interaction part, I had a most pleasant surprise. I had mailed Prof Vanyo a couple of years or so ago with some questions about that in relation of a possible core break out. His kind reply was that he was retired and he could not judge that.

http://www.me.ucsb.edu/dept_site/vanyo/vanyo_vita.htm

2004, Vanyo, Core-mantle relative motion and coupling. In press, Geophys. J. Int.

Core motion induced by luni-solar precession of the mantle is analyzed and compared to experiments and to Earth observations. A first-order motion has the core axis lagging the mantle axis in precession by a small angle. This misalignment of the axes results in core mantle relative velocities and dis placements over the core-mantle interface as second order flow. A third-order flow ..etc

Consequently, I need to study a bit again but it's looking very good. The less I have to invent myself, the better.

 

[arildno]

I would strongly advise you to get in touch with Vanyo again (after you've read his paper); perhaps your questions sparked off some ideas of his resulting in that article.
Hence, he might be receptive to open up a dialogue with you.

 

[Andre]

Right I was thinking the same.

http://www.me.ucsb.edu/dept_site/vanyo.htm are the papers.

http://www.me.ucsb.edu/dept_site/vanyo/computational.pdf sends goosebumps down my spine:

J. P. Vanyo (2003) Computational difficulties with precessional energy and motion, Mechanical Engineering and Geological Sciences University of California, Santa Barbara Presented at the: UCLA Mathematics NSF Workshop, August, 2003
...
Energy obtained by a ‘growing’ inner core is limited by the known small size of the inner core. Energy available from this model has a maximum near the minimum 10^11 W needed for a geodynamo. Precessional energy is obtained from Earth rotational kinetic energy and is limited by known estimates of secular deceleration by lunar and solar torques. Estimates of days/year from 850 Ma ago and 360 Ma ago of 435 (10,11) and 397 (12) , respectively, all compute to ~ 3.5x10^12 W average continuous loss of rotational kinetic energy. Although this energy also powers other phenomena (lunar orbit changes, oceanic and solid Earth tides), even 10% placed into core energy is three times the minimum of 10^11 W needed...

Check that growing inner core. If an occasional spin axis break out has occurred in Earth due to loss of stability due chaotic outer core flow associated with geomagnetic events (flips and excursions) then the heat from drag would have decreased the radius of the inner core again and the energy bill would be completely different.

 

[arildno]

For some unfathomable reason, I deleted my earlier response, but Vanyo might well be the scientist you can approach on this to get some in-depth comments on your work.

 

[NileQueen]

Well, maybe you got him thinking about it, and he has been researching...

 

[Nereid]

For some unfathomable reason, I deleted my earlier response, but Vanyo might well be the scientist you can approach on this to get some in-depth comments on your work.

For some unfathomable reason I undeleted your earlier response ...

Now, if I could 'unspend' money as easily ...

 

[arildno]

Your powers of undeletion are unmatched, great Nereid.

 

[Andre]

Great, need to maintain the momentum I guess and continue, actually I planning to complete the research of the spurious "Younger Dryas" for the presentation on 18 June to the Dutch Pleistocene Mammal work group about how the clathrate gun killed the mammoth. For who understands Dutch: http://www.pleistocenemammals.com/ click on "aktiviteiten" left and scroll down 14.30-15.00

But this is more important. So expect the next bit soon.

 

[Andre]

So this is what I have now: We should be half way, just setting the stage for the Big Brake hypothesis

INTRODUCTION

Venus is spinning slowly backwards or “retrograde”. This condition was discovered in 1962 using radar measurement (Smith 1963) A total true rotation about its axis would take 243 days whilst the orbit of the planet takes only 225 days. This combination results in a solar day length of ~117 Earth days. This unusual situation has lead to numerous studies investigating the spinning of Venus.

Possible scenarios include an original prograde spinning of the planet followed by some dragging mechanism as a result of spinning perturbations and atmospheric tidal drag. This could have caused the spinning to slow down and then reverse or alternately the planet to flip over, also effectively causing the spinning to reverse. (Goldreich & Peale 1970, Yoder 1995, Neron de Surgy & Laskar 1997 Correia & Laskar 2003-referred to as the CL03 model). However these scenarios lead to a rather small exchange of angular momentum. Consequently the initial spinning rate of Venus could not have exceeded 3,5 days per revolution (CL03) to reach the current state within the time constrain of the lifespan of the solar system.

Alternately the planet could have been born retrograde, assuming that the spinning direction would be at random, following a multiple impact scenario of planetesimals (Hartmann & Vail1986, Lissauer & Safronov 1991, Dones & Tremaine 1993, Lissauer et al 1995,2000). These hypothesis seem not to be completely matching the earlier Solar Nebula Hypothesis model, slowly forming planets, which spin prograde as a consequence of the conservation of momentum. This would have given Venus an initial prograde spinning rate of some 13.5 hours empirically (McDonald 1964). The discovery of protoplanetary disks around other stars (Marcy & Butler 2000) tends to weaken alternate scenarios in favour of a possible an hypothesis that can account for such an condition.

Here we propose a mechanism, that would be compatible with such an initial spinning condition, considering Venus initially having similar orbit and spinning characteristics like Earth, however without moon. It is actually a (major) modification of the CL03 model, assuming that the spinning axis of the solid inner core of Venus would not follow the spinning perturbations of the planets mantle.

A secondary consequence of such a scenario would be a high braking effect, dissipating the spinning energy into heat. We propose that this heat can account for the present enigmatic features of the planet

THE SPIN OF VENUS AND THE CORE.

Orbital Variations

The motions of the planets in the Solar system are chaotic. Evidence for chaotic behavior of the orbital motions was discovered for Pluto first of the planets. After Pluto (Sussman and Wisdom, 1988), the evidence that the motion of the whole Solar system is chaotic, was established with the averaged equations of motion (Laskar, 1989, 1990), and confirmed later on by direct numerical integration (Sussman and Wisdom, 1992). Not only orbits but with it’s gyroscopic properties, the planet spin axis also perform complicated precession and nutation cycles. The following perturbations cause the spin axis of the planet to change:

A - Precession of the equinoxes, caused by a torque force due to a difference of gravitational forces of the sun (and moon), causing the spin axis to follow a cone.

B - Precession of the perihelion which slowly changes its position in the orbit as a result of the gravity pull of other planets.

C – Inclination cycle, motored by the gravitational interaction between the planets in their different inclinations. (Muller, McDonald 1995) (can’t find the cause so far – due to gravitational interaction with the other stars in the galaxy?)

D – Resulting from interactions between the previous cycles the obliquity of the spin axis also cycles (Ward 1992) . The Earth’s obliquity varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees in a complicated cycle that averages about 41,000 years. Mars obliquity is assumed to cycle between about 15 degrees and 35 degrees over a 124,000-year cycle. At present Venus has a stable obliquity of about 3 degrees

Chaotic zone.

When the precession frequencies of the spin axis of the terrestrial planet coincide with the frequency of variations in its orbital inclination, spin-orbit resonance occurs where the cycles amplify each other. This causes big and erratic or chaotic variations in the obliquity of the terrestrial planets. Ward** Laskar and Robutel (1993). The area with the matching frequencies, that lead to those large excursions is called the chaotic zone.

Considering the Earth, the precession frequency of the axis (26,000 years) is far from the main orbital secular frequencies of the Earth is nowhere near a chaotic zone. In the absence of the moon, the situation would be very different. The precession frequency would be much lower, bringing it to comparable values with the obliquity cycle, and multiple resonances could then occur between the precession of the axis and the precession of the orbital plane This is also what may happen in the future as the moon continues to recede from the Earth Ward 1992** , Neron de Surgy and Laskar, 1997). This situation is very similar for all inner planets. They may have been in a chaotic zone at any specific time in the past. A prograde spinning Venus with hypothetical comparable parameters to Earth and Mars a chaotic zone is very well possible. Numerical integrations have suggested that even a 180 degrees obliquity, or a complete flip, was achievable (Laskar and Robutel, 1993, Laskar 1995, Yoder1997).

The Core

Goldreich and Peale (1970) proposed that friction at a core-mantle boundary should drive the spin pole to a fully dampened obliquity state which ends with retrograde rotation So after a chaotic obliquity behavior Venus ended in a current stable state, also CL03 works this out under the assumption that the interior of Venus resembles that of Earth and remained constant. Moreover it’s observed that:

“the core and the mantle do not have the same dynamical ellipticity because of their different shapes and densities. Since the precession torques exerted by the Sun on Venus' core and mantle are proportional to their dynamical ellipticity, the two parts tend to precess differently around an axis perpendicular to the orbital plane.”

Nevertheless it’s assumed that the hydrodynamic and magnetic core mantle coupling is adequate to preserve or restore spin axis alignment of core and mantle. At this point we deviate from the hypothesis using the following observations/assumptions:

The interior of Venus is not constant but depending on thermal properties. Internal temperatures and pressures determine the molecular viscosity of the fluid outer core and the size of the inner core. The inner core tends to grow due to cooling (Vanyo ****) transferring considerable angular momentum from the fluid outer core. Eddy viscosity in the outer core is most likely a major player in the stability of the inner core spin axis but is variable with thermal gradient and subject to chaotic flow (Glatzmaier 1997).

As has been showed for Earth, the inner core spin axis lags the mantle spin slightly axis under the current semi-stable precession and obliquity conditions (Vanyo 2004) However, considering the variable properties of the interior of the planet, it cannot be assumed that core mantle coupling remains adequate enough throughout all unstable conditions and a spin axis break out of the inner core is not unlikely.

BTW The Coreia Laskar 2003 (CL03)links are broken. Here is the pre publication set:

http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus1.2002.pdf
http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus2.2002.pdf

 

[Zanket]

Some rants as I reformat my paper to conform to the first journal I’ll send it to:

They want books referenced by title, publisher name, publisher city name, and year published. Who the hell looks up a book by the publisher city name, especially when no state or country is given? And why not just the title and the ISBN, a globally unique identifier that’s been used for decades? Perhaps there’s a good reason for this requirement, but it sounds more like the journal is firmly stuck in the 1800s. At least the search engines are so good that the lookup on title will be enough.

They say, “don’t use the word ‘significant’ unless it refers to statistical significance”. Yeah I get really confused when ‘significant’ refers to something other than that. Seriously, what is the opposite of "negligible" if not "significant"? Those are common words.

They preferably want PDF format, but if so, only version 5.5. Version 7.0 is the latest. I suppose if I look around I can find the old version on Ebay or some other solution that can output the old version. Then find the old version of the reader program to test it.

I feel better now.

 

[Zanket]

Advice wanted please.

The peer-reviewed journal I submitted my paper to rejected it with “I regret to say that it is not the sort of work we publish” a day later. Since the subject of the paper is obviously within the realm of what they publish, I translate their response to “I regret to say that it is not the sort of junk we publish.” I was hoping for some feedback beyond that.

The paper is about a flaw of general relativity and a fix to that flaw. I realize that this is a big claim, but, based on comments in this thread, I hoped that the paper would not be summarily rejected just for making that claim or for other unscientific reasons. The abstract is to the point about what the paper shows. The fix is a replacement for the Schwarzschild metric only (thus a partial solution). The paper has an extensive experimental confirmation section showing that the new metric matches general relativity’s predictions to all significant digits for its three classical tests. For example, the new metric returns 42.98 arc seconds per century for the relativistic orbital precession of Mercury. I cover five experimental tests. The fix is derived from a logical progression of simple equations. There’s nothing “forced” or ad hoc about the derivation. I show that the predictions of the new metric differ from the Schwarzschild metric in gravity stronger than that in the experimental tests done so far.

My feeling is, a paper that shows a simple derivation of a new metric that demonstrably approximates the Schwarzschild metric for the three classical tests of general relativity is worthy of more than a summary rejection, even if it is obviously invalid for some reason. I am confident that the paper is clearly presented so that the derivation and results are not hard to follow (I write a lot of documentation for my work and can see that people are able to understand it). The paper does not have the look & feel of a physics paper. I am not a physicist, and I just don’t write that way—I may be incapable of writing that way. I would say that it has more the look & feel of software documentation. The paper is heavy on thought experiments and light on math. Only high school algebra is used by me.

Any advice on what I can do to get better feedback from the next journal I submit to?

 

[ktpr2]

"I may be incapable of writing that way. I would say that it has more the look & feel of software documentation. The paper is heavy on thought experiments and light on math. Only high school algebra is used by me."

That's why they won't publish it. It's to easy to understand :) I'd put the paper up at http://xxx.lanl.gov/ and see where you can go from there.

 

[Zanket]

I'd put the paper up at http://xxx.lanl.gov/ and see where you can go from there.

I’d certainly do that next (I’d need an endorser) were I convinced that I’d always be rejected for an unscientific reason. This thread gave me hope that the journals are not like that.

 

[Zanket]

No more comment eh?

OK, since this thread is now specifically about abstracts, I offer mine:

Title: A Flaw of General Relativity, a Fix, and Cosmological Implications

Abstract: A flaw of general relativity is exposed and is shown to source from a misapplication of the equivalence principle, the theory’s core postulate. The equivalence principle and special relativistic equations are used to derive a replacement for the Schwarzschild metric. (The vast majority of experimental tests of general relativity have been tests of the Schwarzschild metric.) The new metric is shown to be confirmed by the three classical tests of general relativity. The predictions of the new metric are shown to significantly differ from those of the Schwarzschild metric only in gravity far stronger than that in which the latter has been experimentally tested. The cosmological implications explain some observations simpler than do alternative explanations.

Now I ask, in your opinion will such title and abstract alone elicit a summary rejection from a “respected” peer-reviewed journal? Even here at PF the official rule is that relativity’s validity cannot be argued (although the unofficial rule seems to be that it can, but ducks must be in order). Am I barking up the wrong tree by trying the peer-reviewed journal route? My main goal is to get the paper vetted. The peer-reviewed journal offers that, but is of course useless if they reject the paper out of hand (i.e. don’t actually review it, or don’t tell me their result other than simply “no”). I am also interested in any suggestion about the title, abstract, or subject matter of the paper.

More on the saga on getting my paper published by a peer-reviewed journal: I asked the editors of the one and only journal I submitted it to, who summarily rejected it, to please give a bit of scientific feedback, especially in light of the extensive experimental confirmation. No response.

 

[Nereid]

Even here at PF the official rule is that relativity’s validity cannot be argued (although the unofficial rule seems to be that it can, but ducks must be in order)

I think this is a bit rich ... a great many PF-ers would be delighted if you could point out an inconsistency:
a ) within the internal workings of GR (AND which had escaped the decades of attention of the writers of textbooks, courses, papers, etc) OR
b ) with QFT (OTHER than those which are already well-known, documented, etc) OR
c ) with good observational or experimental results (OTHER than those already discussed at considerable length in the professional literature).

 

[Zanket]

I think this is a bit rich ... a great many PF-ers would be delighted if you could point out an inconsistency:

I thought it was a bit rich too, which is why in another thread I asked for clarification. The rules for the relativity forum say “[this forum] is not meant as a soapbox for those who wish to argue Relativity's validity”. The clarification I got is along the lines of what you say. I think the rules should be amended to say what you say.

My original idea was to link to my paper in a post here at PF, and let it be vetted here. I think there are enough people here who are smart about relativity. But in this thread ZapperZ cautions that no significant contribution to science has been published outside of a peer-reviewed journal, and my paper would be banned from those journals if I publish it elsewhere first (they want first dibs). I imply from this that publishing here on PF would doom the paper to obscurity, even if not refuted. Do you have any comment on that?

c ) with good observational or experimental results (OTHER than those already discussed at considerable length in the professional literature).

Not sure I get this one. How can I show that a new metric is confirmed by tests of GR without referring to the results of some of the same experiments as for GR? I do show that the new metric predicts different results than does GR for tests not yet done; is that what you mean?

 

[ZapperZ]

My original idea was to link to my paper in a post here at PF, and let it be vetted here. I think there are enough people here who are smart about relativity. But in this thread ZapperZ cautions that no significant contribution to science has been published outside of a peer-reviewed journal, and my paper would be banned from those journals if I publish it elsewhere first (they want first dibs). I imply from this that publishing here on PF would doom the paper to obscurity, even if not refuted. Do you have any comment on that

You are bombarded with many information each day. How do you discriminate what you pay attention to, and what you barely pay attention to, and what do you ignore?

Most physics journals, especially the popular ones, get tons of submission EACH DAY. If they pay equal attention to ALL of them, I will say without hesitation that nothing will get published because they will not be able to hire enough people to process them, and they will not be able to find enough referees to review them (I'm on my 3rd week reviewing one single paper right now).

Based on this info, consider YOUR situation: (i) From what I gather, you are the sole author of this paper, no? (ii) you are not part of a collaboration of well-known group or authors (iii) You have no previous track record of publication, presentation, work, etc. in the field you're writing on. (iv) Your paper didn't come with any endorsement from someone working in such a field.

Now tell me, if you receive 2000+ papers today, and yours is one of them, would you pay much attention to yourself? MORE prominent authors than you have been rejected for publications. So what makes you think your chances would be any better?

And what journal did you submit this to? In all of this, you have neglected to mention the name of the journal that has rejected your submission. You didn't send it into Nature or Science, did you, because if you did, I could have saved you the trouble and tell you this outcome before hand.

What about working from the ground up? (i) find some expert in this field (NOT on PF!) and ask him/her to review your work! Unless you can get someone to endorse it, I do not see a good possibility of getting a publication (ii) aim for the lower-tier journals. I do not see Science, Nature, PRL, or even PRE in your future. To be blunt, find some obscure journal that covers this area and submit it there. This is the ONLY way that I can see to build a track record in your case.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

Now tell me, if you receive 2000+ papers today, and yours is one of them, would you pay much attention to yourself?

I would not. That is why I had forsaken the peer-reviewed journal route to begin with. Ideally a journal would be up front to deny submission in the cases you mention (if they won’t read it, why should they allow it to be submitted?); but I didn’t expect them to do that either.

MORE prominent authors than you have been rejected for publications. So what makes you think your chances would be any better?

I figured my chances would be near zero.

And what journal did you submit this to?

To Science, only because if my odds are near zero with all journals, why not start at the top? The rejection was not unexpected. Still I will ask them for a scientific explanation for the rejection. If everyone summarily rejected bombarded them with emails, it might induce them to change their submission process to deny submission to papers they won’t read. Or they are especially haughty they’ll send those emails to a bit bucket.

What about working from the ground up? (i) find some expert in this field (NOT on PF!) and ask him/her to review your work! Unless you can get someone to endorse it, I do not see a good possibility of getting a publication (ii) aim for the lower-tier journals.

That is good advice, thanks. I will work on those. I have looked for a lower-tier journal; do you know of one that is not full of UFOlogy?

 

[Andre]

I do hear a grin in the back, somewhere shut up, Thomas Kühn.

You can look for your "wheel barrow" whatever you want but if your crackpottery encompasses more than one speciality, you have a big problem. Believe me.

 

[jma2001]

Zanket,

I sent you an e-mail this morning, offering to read your paper and give you some feedback, but I haven't heard back from you. Are you afraid someone is going to steal your idea?

 

[Zanket]

I just saw your email; I'm here sporadically. Since you mention it here, I'll reply here: I appreciate your interest. I'm going to first try ZapperZ's suggested route, of getting an expert in the field to review it. If I am unsuccessful in that then I will email you back. (Keep in mind that you need a good intuitive understanding of SR and GR as a baseline.)

 

[gazzo]

I just got our national math journal in the mail today, and most of the papers published were received ~2 years ago (eg one was received 02/05).

Just suprising, didn't think the reviewing process would be that long...

 

[Monique]

I just got our national math journal in the mail today, and most of the papers published were received ~2 years ago (eg one was received 02/05).

as in Februari 2005? :zzz:

 

[Andre]

That seems to be normal:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-4D981HT-7&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2004&_rdoc=4&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0b284267bd4253e881e9a30a3ae22780

Received 19 October 2002; revised 17 February 2004; accepted 6 July 2004. Available online 11 September 2004.

 

[Zanket]

An update on the saga of me trying to get my paper published:

I’m learning a lot about the process, mostly that science is a “conforming members only” club subsidized by the taxpayers. I’ve learned that most peer-reviewed journals are closed to either unknown submitters or novel ideas. The quality of the paper is irrelevant. For example, http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:7T80CoxZEcUJ:www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf+einstein+%22peer-review%22+planck&hl=en by Tipler was an eye opener; apparently some Nobel winners had a hard time getting groundbreaking ideas published—they often got rejected even though there was nothing wrong with their paper. What chance do I have then?

After getting summarily rejected from the journal Science (presumably because I’m an unknown, as corroborated by others) after spending some hours formatting my paper to their specs, I have taken to emailing the editor of a journal first, to ask if they reject out of hand like Science does. I politely ask if my paper will be read given that I am unknown and the paper challenges the status quo. The answers are diplomatic, pretending openness, but I’ve worked for bureaucratic organizations enough to plainly read between the lines, “We’ll reject you even before the last bits of your paper hit our server!”

I’m trying to get an endorsement on arxiv.org now, so I can submit the paper there. This page warns endorsers, “You should not endorse the author if the author is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the field, or if the work is entirely disconnected with current work in the area.” The first part is of course fine, but the second part reads a lot like, “or if the work is a novel idea.” So I may come to find out that this avenue is closed to me too, and again regardless of the quality of the paper. But there’s hope yet.

I take comfort in that my government affords me copyright protection, and let's me self-publish to a web site. At least that way I got the paper date-stamped. I’m not complaining about the way things are, but I do wonder (like Tipler does) to where science would be progressing were things different. Who knows how many great ideas are being lost to science because it is a “conforming members only” club?

 

[ZapperZ]

Who knows how many great ideas are being lost to science because it is a “conforming members only” club?

None. Because so far, all people have done is speculate, but no one could show even ONE idea that was "lost".

Zz.

 

[jma2001]

I take comfort in that my government affords me copyright protection, and let's me self-publish to a web site. At least that way I got the paper date-stamped.

Well, if you do self-publish your paper to a web site, please post the link here. After all this discussion and debate over a paper we have never seen, I for one would very much like to read it for myself.

 

[Zanket]

None. Because so far, all people have done is speculate, but no one could show even ONE idea that was "lost".

That is the finest example I've seen of putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Zanket]

Well, I sent a mail to be posted to sci.physics.research requesting an endorser for arxiv, including a link to the paper. This is a moderated newsgroup. I just got a reply back from the moderator saying that my mail cannot be posted to the newsgroup because the paper is overly speculative. I replied to the mod:

That's bull****, with all due respect. Each section of the paper builds on the last to culminate in a rock-solid experimental confirmation section. How could I have overly speculated to end up matching all significant digits of a bunch of experiments? I don't think you read the paper. You only glanced at it and it didn't match your worldview.

Jma2001, I’ll send you the link by email. I won’t put it on PF.

 

[ZapperZ]

That is the finest example I've seen of putting the cart before the horse.

Fine, let's examine what YOU have done, shall we?

Go re-read that link you gave by Tipler. I find it appaling that you would cite him RELIGIOUSLY in here and in that "other" thread about the TD section when it suits your need, and yet, you IGNORED completely when he CLEARLY said that with regards to Einstein's 1905 paper, it was, in the truest sense, "peer-reviewed".

Secondly, I was going to just let that snide comment of yours about the taxpayers subsidizing the "conforming members only". But it appears that someone (me) has to knock some sense of reality into you. First of all, as one of those people funded by "taxpayers money", I hold ZERO copyrights on ALL my papers published while I am funded. Every single work I've done and published belongs to the "taxpayers" and in the public domain. Next, if I ever file a patent, the patent does NOT belong to me, but to the funding or public institution that I either work for, or funded the work. If the patent ever makes any money (more than half of patents never see a cent), I only get a small percentage of that money based on the agreement of the contact that I signed. Thirdly, do you know how many times we are reviewed on what we do every year? Our program is reviewed once a year by the Dept. of Energy. Our division review us once a year internally. The U. of Chicago (that runs the lab under contract from the DOE) review us every other year. And this doesn't count yet the additional safety review we go through every so often in a year! So before you settle comfortably in your smug ignorance about what it means to be taxpayer funded, try getting those through your head.

Thirdly, for every Tipler ramblings you can come up with, I can come up with an opposite opinion. I am not surprised that you either did not read, or ignored Dan Koshland article in Nature "Crazy, but correct"[1]. He tried publishing back in the 1950's an explanation that countered the conventional wisdom at that time and was rejected by several journals. Unlike you, he didn't whinned and blame the world, but rather went to "lower-tier" journal to get it published. The rest, as they say, is history because what he publshed has now gone into textbooks. And since you like to play with the "quatation" game, I'll do the same:

Non-conformists are necessary for progress in science, just as mutations are necessary for progress in evolution. However, there must be constraints to select good mutations from bad mutations. Too many mutations block evolution, as error-prone strains of bacteria have proved.

But it is not easy to select between the unexpected and the impossible in today's world of increasing specialization and exponential increase in knowledge. The existence of multiple journals provides the final safeguard against too much conservatism and is the ultimate reason that science is more receptive to non-conformity than any other segment of our society

So what it boils down to now is that what you hold so dearly to what Tipler said is not some objective fact, but rather a subjective opinion based on a matter of tastes. Tipler and you have yours, and Koshland and I have ours. Except there is an important difference. While you rely on 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th hand information, I live and deal with this directly. I do not rely on hearsay, and I certainly do not base all of my opinion on what others think.

It is utterly arrogant of you to think that (i) you DESERVE to get published in Science, of all places and (ii) your rejection is anything SPECIAL due to your lack of "reputation" (even if this is true). Science rejects WAY more papers than it even considered! *I* have been rejected by Science. The paper that I co-authored eventually was published in PRL and it became the most-cited paper of all the papers that I've published! I know of bigger names in physics that have been rejected by Science, even BEFORE the paper ever got to the referees. You're not special!

What you have shown is your propensity to cite dubious sources, your lack of meticulous checking of information, and your tendency to only see and use what suits your needs and reject or ignore those that don't, even from the SAME source! Nothing that has transpired here reveal to me someone who can produce high quality work that can stand the test of being challenged.

Zz.

[1] D.E. Koshland, Nature, v.432, p.447 (2004).

 

[Zanket]

Go re-read that link you gave by Tipler. I find it appaling that you would cite him RELIGIOUSLY in here and in that "other" thread about the TD section when it suits your need, and yet, you IGNORED completely when he CLEARLY said that with regards to Einstein's 1905 paper, it was, in the truest sense, "peer-reviewed".

Two different threads, the same paper cited for different reasons in each. He said the opposite of what you imply. I’ll respond to this in the other thread. Please don’t merge threads.

So before you settle comfortably in your smug ignorance about what it means to be taxpayer funded, try getting those through your head.

Nowhere have I said that science is wasting taxpayers’ money, as you imply. The taxpayers are wasting their own money. The system they have allowed to form is suboptimal. They could easily get higher value for their money.

I am not surprised that you either did not read, or ignored Dan Koshland article in Nature "Crazy, but correct"[1]. He tried publishing back in the 1950's an explanation that countered the conventional wisdom at that time and was rejected by several journals.

Good to know. I’ll check that one out.

Unlike you, he didn't whinned and blame the world, but rather went to "lower-tier" journal to get it published.

All I have done here is put my saga and opinions. I am no more whining than Tipler does, or than you do in your three points above about the burden put on you by the taxpayers.

The rest, as they say, is history because what he publshed has now gone into textbooks. And since you like to play with the "quatation" game, I'll do the same:

I agree on Koshland’s quote on mutations. The problem in science is that mutations are inspected inefficiently. Eventual Nobel winners should not be getting rejected as a matter of course. There should be another avenue for the mutants, as Tipler suggests.

Re “multiple journals provides the final safeguard,” there is some truth to that but again it’s inefficient for an eventual Nobel winner to have to submit a paper to a succession of journals over a period of months or years. Tipler’s proposed solution is to set up a panel of open-minded experts to give the mutants an avenue that is not all but closed to new ideas.

So what it boils down to now is that what you hold so dearly to what Tipler said is not some objective fact, but rather a subjective opinion based on a matter of tastes. Tipler and you have yours, and Koshland and I have ours. Except there is an important difference. While you rely on 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th hand information, I live and deal with this directly. I do not rely on hearsay, and I certainly do not base all of my opinion on what others think.

Oh, the haughtiness!

It is utterly arrogant of you to think that (i) you DESERVE to get published in Science,

I said the opposite. I said I would reject people like me were I running their show, but I would do it by disallowing the submission. Please read my posts more carefully before responding.

The paper that I co-authored eventually was published in PRL and it became the most-cited paper of all the papers that I've published! I know of bigger names in physics that have been rejected by Science, even BEFORE the paper ever got to the referees. You're not special!

Yes, master.

 

[mathwonk]

moderator, please close this sad thread.