How to write the abstract for a paper

  • Thread starter Zanket
  • Start date
  • #76
308
0
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.)
 
  • #77
175
0
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...
 
  • #78
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
gazzo said:
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:
 
  • #80
308
0
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 [Broken] 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 lets 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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,676
Zanket said:
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.
 
  • #82
jma2001
Gold Member
85
0
Zanket said:
I take comfort in that my government affords me copyright protection, and lets 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.
 
  • #83
308
0
ZapperZ said:
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.
 
  • #84
308
0
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.
 
  • #85
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,676
Zanket said:
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:

Koshland said:
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.

Koshland said:
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).
 
  • #86
308
0
ZapperZ said:
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.
 
  • #87
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2020 Award
11,154
1,349
moderator, please close this sad thread.
 

Related Threads on How to write the abstract for a paper

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
761
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
634
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Top