Is it time to rethink the name of Theory Development in the Physics section?

[ZapperZ]

I’m saying that, without asking for anything, a good idea posted to forums like this will likely be received by physicists eventually. People like you will read it, and finding nothing wrong with it, will not relegate it to the TD section. And if it would affect their own research if valid, it is unlikely they would ignore it outright simply because of where it was published.

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.

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

With fear and trepidation, I offer three "PF" examples:

- Andre's 'Venus rotation braking' idea (his posts should be relatively easily found) - he worked it out in some details, posted here in PF, and asked for critiques. No one (IMHO) really gave him any, yet it may contain an idea (and some early, moderate-to-good exploration of that idea) that pans out; check back in a decade or three!

- turbo-1 and 'ZPE' being the source of 'deviations' to GR. This is (IMHO) an example of what will NOT go anywhere; the cosmological implications/aspects of ZPE are fascinating, but turbo-1 did not introduce anything 'new' (in the sense of ideas that aren't already the subject of dozens of papers)

- Garth and 'SCC'. This is the closest I've come across as something that meet's Zapper's challenge - several 'SCC-related' papers (apparently) have been published, and the only reason I can see that his own was rejected by reviewer(s) was an obsession with the certainty that DM exists. Now I'll be the first to admit that I DO NOT have all 'the facts' to hand (e.g. there could have been many other, very valid, reasons why reviewers rejected Garth's paper, that he didn't tell us about). But best of all about Garth's idea is his forthrightness in saying that GPB's results will clearly be inconsistent with his idea, or with GR (at the many sigma level), so we have only to wait another few months!

 

[ZapperZ]

- Andre's 'Venus rotation braking' idea (his posts should be relatively easily found) - he worked it out in some details, posted here in PF, and asked for critiques. No one (IMHO) really gave him any, yet it may contain an idea (and some early, moderate-to-good exploration of that idea) that pans out; check back in a decade or three!

But this is exactly why such a forum such as this is useless in such a discussion. 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. And yes, it would be a "discussion" rather than someone "publishing" an idea onto a forum, which is what quacks try to do.

And if we check back in a decade or three, who would be around to verify or even remember such a thing appeared in PF? Would there be the same care to archive everything the way the Physical Review has done with their entire catalog of published papers? I'd say that this is even more of a reason why I find doing such a thing in an open forum is thoroughly illogical.

- Garth and 'SCC'. This is the closest I've come across as something that meet's Zapper's challenge - several 'SCC-related' papers (apparently) have been published, and the only reason I can see that his own was rejected by reviewer(s) was an obsession with the certainty that DM exists. Now I'll be the first to admit that I DO NOT have all 'the facts' to hand (e.g. there could have been many other, very valid, reasons why reviewers rejected Garth's paper, that he didn't tell us about). But best of all about Garth's idea is his forthrightness in saying that GPB's results will clearly be inconsistent with his idea, or with GR (at the many sigma level), so we have only to wait another few months!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Garth has mentioned that he had published such a thing. I have no idea why this idea is being "pushed" on here, when it should be done among people who are experts in the field. I do not consider this as a valid example of what I have requested. It's like me trying to convince you that the overdoped Bi-2212 high-Tc cuprate has Fermi Liquid properties AFTER I've published it. Why would I want to do such a thing here, of all places?

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

As to the rest of that post, let me paraphrase and correct me if I got it wrong: The reason “No person in their right mind would discuss such a theory on an open forum such as this” is because the flaws could then be corrected by anyone, who gets credit for the completion, whereas in a collaboration and/or co-authorship setting there’s an agreement (implied or otherwise) that all involved will equally share credit for the completion.

Correct.

And if the author is sans credentials, don’t they then reject the article sight unseen? Isn’t that prudent given the unlikelihood, historically given, that such article would pass even the initial screening?

No. As long as it fits within the scope of the journal and complies with the instructions to authors, it will be given a review. The exception would be to a handful of journals, such as Science and Nature, where a pre-review screening is done to only send out papers for full review that are of sufficiently high impact or broad interest for those journals.

Indeed. That’s why it would seem more efficient to post here first, where flaws can be pointed out in hours rather than months.

Months? Most reviews are returned within two or three weeks, at least for the journals I submit to. Since it has become so easy to submit everything electronically, there's no need for delay anymore waiting for reviewers to respond via mail.

The author can weigh that benefit against the drawback that you pointed out regarding credit of the corrected idea. And if no flaw is found here, then it seems that time has potentially been gained and nothing has been lost.

Except that is still not the purpose of PF. It was somewhat tolerated in the past, but it's a cost-benefit issue. The cost of all the crackpots posting and the effort required to keep them in check far outweighs using this site as a place to post a legitimate new theory. Besides, how has time been gained in posting the theory here? You'd still have to send the manuscript out for peer review for publication. This still doesn't count as a publication. I doubt that's the business Greg is interested in getting into. If it is unflawed, it has wasted time by not being submitted directly to a journal where people could actually cite the publication and to get it out where the majority of people in the field would see it.

 

[Moonbear]

And if we check back in a decade or three, who would be around to verify or even remember such a thing appeared in PF? Would there be the same care to archive everything the way the Physical Review has done with their entire catalog of published papers? I'd say that this is even more of a reason why I find doing such a thing in an open forum is thoroughly illogical.

Another very good point. Unlike published journals, which are archived in both print and electronic formats and distributed throughout numerous libraries (I recall when much of the library collection at UT was destroyed in floods, emails were sent out requesting donations of old issues of journals such as Science, of which their bound copies were destroyed...if one library loses their collection, there are still archives in many other places so that the articles and information contained within them are not lost forever), all it would take here would be a server crash, or Greg deciding he was tired of keeping this site running, and whatever is posted here would be gone. I don't know if Greg bothers to back up his server. He probably does, but is under no obligation to do so.

 

[Monique]

For those wondering: some content of this thread, on writing manuscripts and abstracts, has been split into another thread that can be found here https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=579430#post579430 in the Academic & Career Guidance forum.

 

[Garth]

Just as a point of information:

Garth and 'SCC'. This is the closest I've come across as something that meet's Zapper's challenge - several 'SCC-related' papers (apparently) have been published,

Barber, G.A. : 1982, Gen Relativ Gravit. 14, 117. 'On Two Self Creation Cosmologies'. & "'A New Self Creation Cosmology, a 'semi-metric' theory of gravitation'," Astrophysics and Space Science 282: 683–730, (2002).
plus 47 other author papers in peer reviewed journals. I could post the list or you could simply "google scholar" for 'self creation cosmology, barber', which picks up some of them.

and the only reason I can see that his own was rejected by reviewer(s) was an obsession with the certainty that DM exists.

and DE

Now I'll be the first to admit that I DO NOT have all 'the facts' to hand (e.g. there could have been many other, very valid, reasons why reviewers rejected Garth's paper, that he didn't tell us about

It was subsequently accepted in another form by Nova Science publishers.

But best of all about Garth's idea is his forthrightness in saying that GPB's results will clearly be inconsistent with his idea, or with GR (at the many sigma level), so we have only to wait another few months!

I hope this helps - I am not trying to "push this", only have some discussion of the physics of the subject. If PF is an unsuitable forum for such discussion I shall will not mention it again.

Garth

 

[ZapperZ]

Just as a point of information:Barber, G.A. : 1982, Gen Relativ Gravit. 14, 117. 'On Two Self Creation Cosmologies'. & "'A New Self Creation Cosmology, a 'semi-metric' theory of gravitation'," Astrophysics and Space Science 282: 683–730, (2002).
plus 47 other author papers in peer reviewed journals. I could post the list or you could simply "google scholar" for 'self creation cosmolgy, barber', which picks up some of them. and DE It was subsequently accepted in another form by Nova Science publishers.

.. and just to clarify, I don't know if Nereid would agree with me that this example does not fulfill the challenge that I have put forward, for the very reason that it HAS appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

Zz.

 

[Integral]

.. and just to clarify, I don't know if Nereid would agree with me that this example does not fulfill the challenge that I have put forward, for the very reason that it HAS appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

Zz.

The fact that it HAS appeared in peer reviewed journals should mean that it IS appropriate for dissuasion in the forums.

 

[quantumdude]

ZapperZ's challenge was to find something that advanced the state of the knowledge of physics without passing peer review. That's why it doesn't meet the challenge.

 

[Garth]

ZapperZ's challenge was to find something that advanced the state of the knowledge of physics without passing peer review. That's why it doesn't meet the challenge.

SCC was first brought up on PF by others. Yet subsequently, when I became a PF member, it was suggested that my posts on the subject be discussed on TD, which at the time I thought was to enable a proper discussion, but of course there the discussion died a death. That is why I argued for another forum for 'maverick' type yet not 'crackpot' discussions.

I'll go with the flow...

Garth

 

[Bystander]

All you need to do is, as I have repeatedly mentioned on here and elsewhere, is to show an example from within the past 100 years, of an idea that never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal that has made a significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics.
(snip).

Is "never" the word you wanted? Did you mean prior to recognition and inclusion in peer reviewed endeavors?

I can offer http://www.lexcie.zetnet.co.uk/radar.htm with the comment that I've run into anecdotes dating prior to WW I of operators listening to their own broadcasts being reflected from shipping in "The Channel" or the E. River or some such. Sure, no new principles --- well established prior to Marconi that EM waves are absorbed, transmitted, or reflected at discontinuities in media --- but I am going to balk at summary dismissal of the subsequent developments as "just an engineering problem."

"Radar" has contributed significantly to developments in physics, and would eventually have been developed as a spectroscopic tool, an expansion of bandwidth in communications, or for some other purpose, but the "non-peer reviewed" history is that it rose from serendipitous observations reported in rather ordinary literature.

"The ZZ challenge" is not as clear as one might wish --- excluding life and Earth sciences arbitrarily, and space sciences on the basis of "I ain't up to speed on the literature in that area," smacks of the "two tens for a five?" or "heads I win, tails you lose" games that go on in bars.

If you've got a more specifically bounded form for the challenge in terms of what is and what is not physics, and what is and what is not "appearance of an idea" in media other than peer reviewed journals, it really would be useful for the discussion. Short and sweet is nice, but it leaves to much room to make up the rules and interpretations afterwards.

 

[ZapperZ]

Is "never" the word you wanted? Did you mean prior to recognition and inclusion in peer reviewed endeavors?

I can offer http://www.lexcie.zetnet.co.uk/radar.htm with the comment that I've run into anecdotes dating prior to WW I of operators listening to their own broadcasts being reflected from shipping in "The Channel" or the E. River or some such. Sure, no new principles --- well established prior to Marconi that EM waves are absorbed, transmitted, or reflected at discontinuities in media --- but I am going to balk at summary dismissal of the subsequent developments as "just an engineering problem."

"Radar" has contributed significantly to developments in physics, and would eventually have been developed as a spectroscopic tool, an expansion of bandwidth in communications, or for some other purpose, but the "non-peer reviewed" history is that it rose from serendipitous observations reported in rather ordinary literature.

"The ZZ challenge" is not as clear as one might wish --- excluding life and Earth sciences arbitrarily, and space sciences on the basis of "I ain't up to speed on the literature in that area," smacks of the "two tens for a five?" or "heads I win, tails you lose" games that go on in bars.

If you've got a more specifically bounded form for the challenge in terms of what is and what is not physics, and what is and what is not "appearance of an idea" in media other than peer reviewed journals, it really would be useful for the discussion. Short and sweet is nice, but it leaves to much room to make up the rules and interpretations afterwards.

1. Since you like things to be VERY clear "as one might wish", then will you be explicitly clear in indicating that there has been ZERO peer-reviewed papers being published on "radar", or the EM theory surrounding it?

2. It would be horribly silly for me to make similar claims to include life science, etc. Unlike crackpots who do not hesitate to spew things in areas that they have no knowledge on, I refuse to do such things. I have concentrated on what I know best based on what I have worked with and worked in. Too many people today seem too willing to just give off their opinion on things that they only have superficial knowledge. I simply and clearly acknowledge that not only am I ignorant of that subject matter, but I'm also ignorant on how things are done in that area. What's wrong with that?!

3. Open an issue of The Physical Review Letters. If the subject area is convered in it, that's physics and physics relevant. Now is that explict enough of a converage area?

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

A paper outside of peer-reviewed journals has NEVER, in the last 100 years, made ANY significant contributions to the advancement in the physics body of knowledge.

None of Einstein’s 1905 papers were peer-reviewed. They were published in the last 100 years (after June 1905). The book Albert Einstein says that Einstein encountered his first peer-reviewed journal, the Physical Review Letters, in the 1930s. He was dismayed by the unexpected review, so he withdrew the paper and published it in a non peer-reviewed journal. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/p/pe/peer_review.htm says:

In a recent editorial in Nature, it was stated that “in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas.”

 

[ZapperZ]

None of Einstein’s 1905 papers were peer-reviewed. They were published in the last 100 years (after June 1905).

Excuse me, but WHO decided that those papers should be published? The Pope? Some Joe Blow on the street?

I restricted the challenge to within the past 100 years or so simply because the formal process of peer-reviewing is not well defined before that. Physics articles were more loosely "peer-reviewed" by the journal editors who themselves were physicists. The Royal Society for example had no peer-reviewing system in place - the head of the society had a run of the place in deciding what gets published!

But it still doesn't mean ALL and ANY submission being sent gets published! Someone still has to decide that such a thing has merit. This is certainly FAR from being an open system where anything, even unverified garbage, can get through - or is this what you are implying?

The book Albert Einstein says that Einstein encountered his first peer-reviewed journal, the Physical Review Letters, in the 1930s. He was dismayed by the unexpected review, so he withdrew the paper and published it in a non peer-reviewed journal.

Well *I* would withdraw my paper too because it was obviously a FRAUD publication. Physical Review Letters did NOT exist then. It's first issue was in 1958! So what does that say about "The book"?

And Einstein was "dismayed" by the idea of peer-review? Where did you think his EPR paper, for example, was published? On some open physics forum?

Your posting here is rife with inaccuracies and misleading information.

Zz.

 

[arildno]

To take the British case:
The fact is that "gurus", like Rutherford, had a LOT more say in what got published in his day than any guru in our day has.

Effectively, you had an old boys network; if you hadn't studied at Cambridge, your name had to be either Oliver Heaviside or Osborne Reynolds in order to have a chance at being published in a scientific journal of the time.

 

[Zanket]

Excuse me, but WHO decided that those papers should be published? The Pope? Some Joe Blow on the street?

Doesn’t matter. They weren’t peer-reviewed, and they were published in the last 100 years.

But it still doesn't mean ALL and ANY submission being sent gets published! Someone still has to decide that such a thing has merit. This is certainly FAR from being an open system where anything, even unverified garbage, can get through - or is this what you are implying?

No, I’m just addressing your specific statement above.

Well *I* would withdraw my paper too because it was obviously a FRAUD publication. Physical Review Letters did NOT exist then. It's first issue was in 1958! So what does that say about "The book"?

Oops, Physical Review, not Physical Review Letters.

And Einstein was "dismayed" by the idea of peer-review? Where did you think his EPR paper, for example, was published? On some open physics forum?

I didn’t say that. I said he was dismayed by an unexpected review. The book Albert Einstein says, "Einstein withdrew the paper, henceforward avoided the Physical Review, and published only in journals without referees."

Edit: I see on Google that the EPR paper was published in the Physical Review, so the book is wrong on the above quote. But Einstein didn't submit the paper (according to this link), so the book's quote may be true for papers that Einstein submitted himself.

 

[ZapperZ]

Doesn’t matter. They weren’t peer-reviewed, and they were published in the last 100 years.

And what you call as "editor review", I call it "peer review". I hate to think that you do not consider Max Planck as a "peer" of Einstein at that time! Someone had to decide that there was merit in Einstein's work, and it certainly wasn't someone ignorant of physics.

Ask any physicist if they think Annalen der Physik isn't a "peer-review" journal but instead a free-for-all. I have seen Conference proceedings with LESS review than what Einstein's 1905 paper had to go through. If Annalen der Physik isn't "peer-reviewed", I challenge you to submit a bunch of garbage to it and get it published. This is the only way to prove to me someone isn't at the other end checking for the quality of work being submitted. And THAT is the whole point of the challenge. Someone who is an expert in the subject HAD to judge the merit of a particular work! It isn't an open forum where EVERYONE can say whatever they like regardless of how valid or high the quality of what they're saying.

No, I’m just addressing your specific statement above.

Oops, Physical Review, not Physical Review Letters.

I didn’t say that. I said he was dismayed by an unexpected review. The book Albert Einstein says, "Einstein withdrew the paper, henceforward avoided the Physical Review, and published only in journals without referees."

Edit: I see on Google that the EPR paper was published in the Physical Review, so the book is wrong on the above quote. But Einstein didn't submit the paper (according to this link), so the book's quote may be true for papers that Einstein submitted himself.

Please check how many of Einstein's work that was published in peer-reviewed journals, thankyouverymuch. You should do this yourself rather than trust FAULTY sources. All you have done so far is to accept as valid 3rd, even 4th hand information rather than checking the facts. You could have, for instance, EASILY check that PRL didn't appear in the 30's, and that Einstein DID publish in many peer-reviewed journals.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

And what you call as "editor review", I call it "peer review". I hate to think that you do not consider Max Planck as a "peer" of Einstein at that time! Someone had to decide that there was merit in Einstein's work, and it certainly wasn't someone ignorant of physics.

I take it you disagree with the link's claim, coorborated by my book, that "The journal's editor in chief, Max Planck, recognized the virtue of publishing such outlandish ideas and had the papers published; none of Einstein's papers were sent to reviewers." I wouldn't call an editor review a peer review.

Please check how many of Einstein's work that was published in peer-reviewed journals, thankyouverymuch. You should do this yourself rather than trust FAULTY sources. All you have done so far is to accept as valid 3rd, even 4th hand information rather than checking the facts. You could have, for instance, EASILY check that PRL didn't appear in the 30's, and that Einstein DID publish in many peer-reviewed journals.

One source is good enough for a post like this; I’d rather be wrong than spend oodles of time. I still have two sources that say that the 1905 papers were not peer-reviewed.

 

[ZapperZ]

I take it you disagree with the link's claim, coorborated by my book, that "The journal's editor in chief, Max Planck, recognized the virtue of publishing such outlandish ideas and had the papers published; none of Einstein's papers were sent to reviewers."

One source is good enough for a post like this; I’d rather be wrong than spend oodles of time. I still have two sources that say that the 1905 papers were not peer-reviewed.

Then you have a very strange way of sticking with the "phrase" without understanding the concept. Pattern like this is a major problem with people bringing in pedestrian terms into physics. The fact that SOMEONE had to decide on the quality of merit of his work meant that it was REVIEWED, unless you have evidence that Planck simply signed off on those papers WITHOUT reading them. Did "the book" tells you that too?

The editors of any journal always have the final say on the fate of any submission. I've seen many instances in which conflicting referee reports require that the editors make the final judgement. You cite this example as if it is unusual - IT ISN'T, at least back then. It is a common practice before the peer-review system was well-established that the editor makes the judgement. But does this mean that Annalen der Physik is NOT a peer-reviewed journal?

Again, I ask you to send in a paper full of garbage and publish it there. Prove me wrong.

Question: Do you think the Science journal is a "peer-reviewed journal"?

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

Then you have a very strange way of sticking with the "phrase" without understanding the concept.

I think I do understand. The determiner in this debate is the degree to which the papers were reviewed. Every article in every magazine generally gets reviewed by an editor, but to what degree? Check out (boldface mine):

From here:

All three [of Einstein’s breakthrough 1905] papers were published in Annalen der Physik, one of the major physics journals in Germany. But none of the papers were sent to referees. Instead the editors—either the editor in chief, Man Planck, or the editor for theoretical physics, Wilhelm Wien—made the decision to publish. It is unlikely that whoever made the decision spent much time on whether to publish. Almost every paper submitted was published. So few people wanted to publish in any physics journal that editors rarely rejected submitted papers. Only papers that were clearly “crackpot” papers—papers that any professional physicist could recognize as written by someone completely unfamiliar with the elementary laws of physics—were rejected.

But does this mean that Annalen der Physik is NOT a peer-reviewed journal?

It may be now. I would say that it was not back then. If it was, then by the same measure most any magazine is peer-reviewed, like Vogue.

Again, I ask you to send in a paper full of garbage and publish it there. Prove me wrong.

Irrelevant. I couldn’t get away with that with Vogue for a fashion article either.

Question: Do you think the Science journal is a "peer-reviewed journal"?

Yes. Question: Do you think Vogue is a peer-reviewed journal?

P.S. I messed up - I accidentely posted my reply via "editing" your post. I tried to restore as much as I can of the original message - Zz.

 

[jma2001]

If I may be so bold as to intrude on this debate ...

Zanket, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? ZapperZ has told you that no idea that has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal has made a significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics within the past 100 years. Even if you could find a counterexample from a century ago, what use would it be to you now? You need to work within the system as it exists today, not as it existed back then.

Instead of trying to find a one-in-a-million loophole through which to beat the system, it seems to me that a much more interesting and fruitful question for you to ask would be, "Have any persons with no prior scientific credentials managed to publish an idea in a peer-reviewed journal during the past 100 years, and if so, how did they do it?"

 

[Zanket]

All I am saying here is that ZapperZ's claim is false. It's an interesting challenge I took on. That's all. I wouldn't read anything more into it.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think I do understand. The determiner in this debate is the degree to which the papers were reviewed. Every article in every magazine generally gets reviewed by an editor, but to what degree? Check out (boldface mine):

Oh, so now we are arguing about the DEGREE of something being reviewed? Recall that I asked originally to show anything that has NEVER appeared in a peer-reviewed journal have made a significant impact in the body of knowledge of physics.

You are now claiming that (i) Annalen Der Physik is NOT a peer-reviewed journal, (ii) and never was even during Einstein's time, EVEN when whoever is in charged ROUTINELY decides what has merit to be published and what doesn't, and (iii) Einstein's 1905 paper was not "reviewed" in any fashion by even one expert in the field.

If (i), (ii), (iii), are true, then you have satisfied in falsifying my claim. Now, you will pardon my saying this, but find me a consensus that show all three of those points are valid. All you have done or could do is to quote SPECULATION like this:

From http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:7T80CoxZEcUJ:www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf+einstein+%22peer-review%22+planck&hl=en :

All three [of Einstein’s breakthrough 1905] papers were published in Annalen der Physik, one of the major physics journals in Germany. But none of the papers were sent to referees. Instead the editors—either the editor in chief, Man Planck, or the editor for theoretical physics, Wilhelm Wien—made the decision to publish. It is unlikely that whoever made the decision spent much time on whether to publish. Almost every paper submitted was published. So few people wanted to publish in any physics journal that editors rarely rejected submitted papers. Only papers that were clearly “crackpot” papers—papers that any professional physicist could recognize as written by someone completely unfamiliar with the elementary laws of physics—were rejected.

Sorry, but "it is unlikely"? And crackpot were rejected? So if I barely reviewed a paper, there is a certainly level now that we can use as a standard to formally declare that a paper hasn't been "peer-reviwed"? And you think a website like that can actually gather enough information to conclusively make the statement that neither Planck nor Wein actually made much attempt to review it?

There is SO much speculation being said above, I am astonish that you actually put THAT much emphasize on the validity and credibility of such a statement. The National Enquirer puts more definite statement in their gossips than that!

It may be now. I would say that it was not back then. If it was, then by the same measure most any magazine is peer-reviewed, like Vogue.

Irrelevant. I couldn’t get away with that with Vogue for a fashion article either.

Question: Do you think the Science journal is a "peer-reviewed journal"?

Yes. Question: Do you think Vogue is a peer-reviewed journal?

So you are telling me that you do not see any difference between, for example, Science and Vogue? Because if you seriously can't, then this "discussion" has been a waste of time.

And here's the reason why I asked about Science. The decision to published the infamous "fusion via sonoluminescence" did not come from the referees. In fact, even Oak Ridge's management requsted that the paper not be published. The editors made a unilateral decision to publish such a thing, for better or for worse. Now, did that make Science a "non peer-reviewed" journal all of the sudden, due to this one article? According to you, it does!

The fact that there IS an oversight, and that anything and everything DOES NOT get accepted, is the VERY essence of a peer-review system. This system is NOT well-established before the 1900's. Look at where most science are done at that time and how it is distributed! More often, it is the head of the society and the editors of a journal that decide what goes in - and they still do even today! Physics journal editors are physicists themselves! Go to a colloquium at Brookhaven and there's a good chance the editors of Physical Review journals are in the audience. (The Physical Review offices are in Ridge, NY, about 15-20 mins from Brookhaven Lab).

And note why I put out the challenge in the first place. It is to point out to those who seem to think the stuff they do on open forums would amount to anything. It doesn't! It must appear FIRST in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a necessary (but not sufficient) criteria. Einstein's 1905 papers satisfy this without any doubt. It would have been FOOLISH of me to put a challenge like that without being aware about the 3 most significant papers in the history of physics. You will note that unlike "the book" that you use as your source of info, I do double check my sources and do my homework in verifying them.

Annalen Der Physik is NOT an open, free-for all forum. It never was. In fact, it IS and WAS a "peer-reviewed" journal by the standard held AT THAT TIME. Anyone who thinks that Einstein's papers appearing in there, under ANY circumstances, is equivalent to a "paper" appearing on PF's TD section, is in serious need of a reality check.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

Oh, so now we are arguing about the DEGREE of something being reviewed?

It seems necessary to delve into that, yes.

You are now claiming that (i) Annalen Der Physik is NOT a peer-reviewed journal, (ii) and never was even during Einstein's time, EVEN when whoever is in charged ROUTINELY decides what has merit to be published and what doesn't, and (iii) Einstein's 1905 paper was not "reviewed" in any fashion by even one expert in the field.

On (i), I didn’t say that. On (ii), I claim that it was not a peer-reviewed journal in Einstein’s time. On (iii), no, I didn’t say that.

And you think a website like that can actually gather enough information to conclusively make the statement that neither Planck nor Wein actually made much attempt to review it?

A statement that it was unlikely, yes.

So you are telling me that you do not see any difference between, for example, Science and Vogue?

I’m saying that I don’t see much difference between the degree of review involved in a journal that publishes almost everything submitted after only an editorial review, and the degree of review that Vogue does.

Now, did that make Science a "non peer-reviewed" journal all of the sudden, due to this one article? According to you, it does!

I didn’t imply that. There are exception to the rule. But at Annalen der Physik in 1905, the rule was the exception. Papers were routinely published after an editorial review, and most papers submitted were published.

The fact that there IS an oversight, and that anything and everything DOES NOT get accepted, is the VERY essence of a peer-review system.

How do you explain that Annalen der Physik published most everything submitted in 1905? Did it just have the good luck to receive only papers that passed muster?

This system is NOT well-established before the 1900's.

The website says that peer-review started in the 1950s. The website talks about another German journal, which by rule published everything submitted by members of a German physicists group, including an important work by Heisenberg.

And note why I put out the challenge in the first place. It is to point out to those who seem to think the stuff they do on open forums would amount to anything. It doesn't! It must appear FIRST in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a necessary (but not sufficient) criteria.

I am not disputing that.

You will note that unlike "the book" that you use as your source of info, I do double check my sources and do my homework in verifying them.

I have offered three sources.

Annalen Der Physik is NOT an open, free-for all forum. It never was. In fact, it IS and WAS a "peer-reviewed" journal by the standard held AT THAT TIME.

By “the standard held at that time” is a huge caveat. I don’t see where you made that clear in your challenge. And that implies that you agree that by today’s standards it was not a peer-reviewed journal. Regardless, the important paper by Heisenberg still seems to win the challenge, for the journal in which it was published was not a peer-reviewed journal by even a very low standard.

Anyone who thinks that Einstein's papers appearing in there, under ANY circumstances, is equivalent to a "paper" appearing on PF's TD section, is in serious need of a reality check.

I don’t claim that it’s equivalent. From what I’ve read, Annalen der Physik in 1905 had the hurdle that one’s first paper was scrutinized (by a top-notch physicist or two) and after that you pretty much got a free pass except for a cursory review (again by a top-notch physicist or two). That is significantly different than PF’s TD section.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don’t claim that it’s equivalent. From what I’ve read, Annalen der Physik in 1905 had the hurdle that one’s first paper was scrutinized (by a top-notch physicist or two) and after that you pretty much got a free pass except for a cursory review (again by a top-notch physicist or two). That is significantly different than PF’s TD section.

But THIS was what "peer-review" was then!

Annalen der Physik and the Proc. of the Royal Soc. of London were practically the Nature and Science of that time! Science and Nature today STILL have the editors as the major hurdle for any paper submitted. In fact, half of the paper submitted to those journals never even get to any reviewers. This practice is more central before the 1900 where editors ARE the reviewers!

It is astounding that Annalen der Physik is not considered to be a "peer-reviewed" journal back then. Just look at some of the most important papers published in there even before Einstein! When you have people like Planck reviewing your work and deciding what gets published, I can't think of what could be more "peer-review" than that! The important point is that SOMEONE has to decide what gets published, and this someone is an expert in THAT field, and not some lawyer or politician, or Vogue editor. It is, and was not, a free for all. If you don't see this as peer-reviewed, then I don't know what is.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

OK, we’ve hashed out the 1905 papers as far as we can.

I submit for your challenge Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, published in 1927 in Zeitschrift fur Physik, which was not a peer-reviewed journal.

From http://www.designinference.com/documents/05.02.resp_to_wein.htm (boldface mine):

One final word about peer-review. As Frank Tipler pointed out to me, the idea of peer-review as the touchstone for truth and scientific merit is actually a post Second World War invention. In physics, peer-reviewed journals were not the norm until after 1950. In Germany, during the "Beautiful Years" -- the period when quantum mechanics was being invented in the 1920s – one of the leading German physics journals, Zeitschrift fur Physik, was not peer-reviewed: any member of the German Physical Society could publish there by simply submitting the paper. So, if you had a really wild idea, all you had to do to get it published was ask a member of the GPS to submit it for you. (If you were a member, you could of course submit for yourself.) Heisenberg published his paper on the Uncertainty Principle in this journal, and Friedmann published his paper on the Friedmann universe (now the standard cosmological model) in this journal. No peer-review. Lots of brilliant physics.

 

[ZapperZ]

OK, we’ve hashed out the 1905 papers as far as we can.

I submit for your challenge Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, published in 1927 in Zeitschrift fur Physik, which was not a peer-reviewed journal.

And again, it is as if I'm not aware of such practices when I made the challenge. Zeitschrift fur Physik IS and WAS a "restricted" journal. Read what you wrote on who can and cannot publish in it. I would like to point out that Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) currently HAS the identical rule! But look at who is allowed to send in for publication. So why bother looking at old, extinct journals if you want such an example? However, I again challenge any quack who thinks he/she can get published in PNAS.

Even then, I disagree with the description of Z-physics (that's what most of us call it) as having a complete absence of oversight. Again, the editors played a significant role in selecting what gets published, even before 1950. Read the editorial policy back then if you understand German, or have someone translate it for you.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

Zeitschrift fur Physik IS and WAS a "restricted" journal. Read what you wrote on who can and cannot publish in it.

The question is only, was it a peer-reviewed journal? If its rule was that its editors could not prevent publication of a serious physics paper as submitted, then that does not meet even the lowest standard of peer-review in my book. The only determination for publication of a submission that the editors need make in that case is to make sure the paper is a bona fide attempt at physics. That would take maybe five minutes of “peer-review” per paper.

Read the editorial policy back then if you understand German, or have someone translate it for you.

I cannot find this on Google. I will have to defer to you on that.

Regardless, since the three sources I gave explicitly disagree with you that Einstein’s 1905 papers were peer-reviewed, I think you should be more careful when making this challenge in the future. To be less confusing, I suggest limiting the challenge not to non-peer-reviewed papers, but rather to papers that were published outside of a mainstream physics journal. Only now do I understand that this is what you really meant, since all your comments show that, to you, mainstream physics journal within the last 100 years = peer-reviewed journal.

 

[ZapperZ]

The question is only, was it a peer-reviewed journal? If its rule was that its editors could not prevent publication of a serious physics paper as submitted, then that does not meet even the lowest standard of peer-review in my book. The only determination for publication of a submission that the editors need make in that case is to make sure the paper is a bona fide attempt at physics. That would take maybe five minutes of “peer-review” per paper.

You will understand if I don't accept what's in "your book".

I asked for "standards" as accepted by people in the physics profession, not my or your personal opinions, in designating what are considered to be "peer-reviewed" journals. It is without doubt that BOTH journals that you have brought up ARE considered to be peer-reviewed journals by people in this profession.

I cannot find this on Google. I will have to defer to you on that.

Regardless, since the three sources I gave explicitly disagree with you that Einstein’s 1905 papers were peer-reviewed, I think you should be more careful when making this challenge in the future. To be less confusing, I suggest limiting the challenge not to non-peer-reviewed papers, but rather to papers that were published outside of a mainstream physics journal. Only now do I understand that this is what you really meant, since all your comments show that, to you, mainstream physics journal within the last 100 years = peer-reviewed journal.

And I disagree. Your sources, especially on Einstein papers (reread what you quoted from them) made WILD speculations that maybe they weren't, likely they weren't, probabily they weren't, etc... peer-reviewed. And you actually BELIEVE this and conclude that this is definitive enough?

No, you have not disproven my challenge.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

One of the sources I gave, the one who says that peer review started in the 1950s, is a professor of physics. People responding to your claim will check sources, and where those disagree with you, they should not be expected to realize that you are God.

 

[ZapperZ]

One of the sources I gave, the one who says that peer review started in the 1950s, is a professor of physics. People responding to your claim will check sources, and where those disagree with you, they should not be expected to realize that you are God.

Again, REREAD the NATURE of your source! You are quoting someone who is quoting Frank Tipler. And your "primary" source here is someone who is having a "wonderful" time on a website making a cases against another person. In other words, you are using a diatribe of someone against someone else, and in all of this, you managed to SQUEEEEZE the flimsiest of "evidence" from Tipler. Please look that it is ambigous if Tipler actually said anything beyond the statement that "... the idea of peer-review as the touchstone for truth and scientific merit is actually a post Second World War invention", and that he IF actually made the comment about Z-physics journal. May I suggest that you contact Tipler himself and verify that (i) this is what he meant (ii) if this is universally accepted as the accurate impression that Z-physics is NOT a peer-reviewed journal by ANY standards.

What amazes me is that you are willing to settle for such mediocre and, at best, DUBIOUS 2nd or even 3rd hand sources, rather than do your homework and go to the actual source. And then you do not feel anything icky about making definitive statement using them! Look up Z-physics journals (there are English translations), double check if Einstein DID publish (and how many) in Physical Review, etc... etc. You have shown that your sources can screw up big time. There's nothing here to tell me that this is any different.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

Again, REREAD the NATURE of your source! You are quoting someone who is quoting Frank Tipler.

That was one of the sources I gave. I also gave a source, a paper of Tipler’s above, in which he says:

The peer review process was put in place after the Second World War because of the huge growth in the scientific community as well as the huge increase in pressure on scholars to publish more and more papers.

...

Only papers that were clearly “crackpot” papers—papers that any professional physicist could recognize as written by someone completely unfamiliar with the elementary laws of physics—were rejected [by mainstream physics journals circa 1905].

...

And if Annalen der Physik rejected a paper, for whatever reason, any professional German physicist had an alternative: Zeitschrift für Physik. This journal would publish any paper submitted by any member of the German Physical Society. This journal published quite a few worthless papers. But it also published quite a few great papers, among them Heisenberg’s first paper on the Uncertainty Principle, a central idea in quantum mechanics. There was no way in which referees or editors could stop an idea from appearing in the professional journals.

I also gave two other sources. Your argument here is that all of these sources are wrong when they say or clearly imply that Einstein’s 1905 papers and Heisenberg’s 1927 paper were not peer-reviewed. It doesn’t matter if they are wrong. People responding to your challenge will find these sources. You should warn people beforehand that you disagree with them.

 

[ZapperZ]

I also gave two other sources. Your argument here is that all of these sources are wrong when they say or clearly imply that Einstein’s 1905 papers and Heisenberg’s 1927 paper were not peer-reviewed. It doesn’t matter if they are wrong. People responding to your challenge will find these sources. You should warn people beforehand that you disagree with them.

And notice I have said this repeatedly: (i) the challenge was to find something that did NOT appear in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e. it appeared in a free-for-all-commers) that has many any significant impact on physics, and (ii) a "restricted membership" publication such as PNAS is far from being considered an open, non-peer reviewed journal!

EVEN if you were right (which I disagree), that Einstein's 1905 paper wasn't peer-reviewed, it STILL appeared in a peer-reviewed journal by ANY standard! If Planck or Wein did decide to publish this without giving it to anyone else, well GOOD FOR THEM! They are exercising their duty as editors! I asked you a similar case in Science and you still considered it to be a peer-review journal. It is just that cases like these are more often before 1800 and the early part of the 20th century because there aren't that many physicists. But Annalen... does not make such an exception ALL the time even back then! Thus, similar case as Science!

I want to know how many physicist would consider PNAS as "non-peer reviewed". Tell me who gets to publish in it, and what criteria is used for one to be inducted into the Nat'l Academy of Sciences. And then, compare this to the German physical society version at that time. With your wealth of sources, I'm sure you can come up with this.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

From this thread:
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".

He clearly said the opposite of what you imply. He said that Einstein’s papers were reviewed (although likely only cursorily) by a peer, Planck or Wien; i.e. peers of Einstein’s caliber. His next sentences are:

Today, Einstein’s papers would be sent to some total nonentity at Podunk U, who, being completely incapable of understanding important new ideas, would reject the papers for publication. “Peer” review is very unlikely to be peer review for the Einsteins of the world.

His proposed solution is that the papers of geniuses should not be peer-reviewed in the way that means today, but rather reviewed by peers of the same caliber, i.e. other open-minded geniuses.

 

[ZapperZ]

He clearly said the opposite of what you imply. He said that Einstein’s papers were reviewed (although likely only cursorily) by a peer, Planck or Wien; i.e. peers of Einstein’s caliber. His next sentences are:

And where did Tipler said "cursorily"? You appear to agree to the letter with him, and yet, deviate substantially with him on this. Tipler is of the opinion that Einstein's paper was reviewed BY his peers! Done!

His proposed solution is that the papers of geniuses should not be peer-reviewed in the way that means today, but rather reviewed by peers of the same caliber, i.e. other open-minded geniuses.

And you accused me of being "haughty"?

If *I* were to be the one spouting such views, the quacks around the world would gleefully point to me as being ellietist, and that only another "genius" can be intelligent enough to evaluate our work. I'm shocked you actually bought into this.

"Geniuses" has ZERO guarantee to being treated with kid gloves! This is not a religious order where, just because you have some "geniuses" IQ, you have a free pass! It is EXACTLY what makes science, and especially physics, different from religion - even Nobel laureates will have to make his/her case heard and argue convincingly.

The path through science isn't easy - the path to be part of the accepted knowledge is even longer. It is why the accepted laws of physics stays constant and RELIABLE for a long time until there is enough convincing evidence to the contrary. Would you prefer we change our physics as often as some of the diet fads? Part of the process IS the struggle to get published, and get published in respected journal. These journals are respected NOT for nothing. Respect is never given - it is earned! In none of these struggles have there ever, EVER, been any significant ideas or discovery that could not make it into such journals, be it sooner or later. This is what is boils down to, not some wild speculation.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

And where did Tipler said "cursorily"?

It is implied in the sentence “It is unlikely that whoever made the decision spent much time on whether to publish [Einstein’s 1905 papers].”

Tipler is of the opinion that Einstein's paper was reviewed BY his peers! Done!

Done only with the understanding that “reviewed BY his peers” is the opposite of “peer-review” in Tipler’s paper. In his paper, “peer-review” is done by “pygmies”, whereas Einstein’s reviewing peers were “giants” like Einstein was.

I'm shocked you actually bought into this.

I did not. I think Tipler’s proposal would be an improvement on the current system, which is why I quote him on it, but it is indeed elitist, therefore suboptimal. I proposed to him a solution that is far more democratic.

"Geniuses" has ZERO guarantee to being treated with kid gloves! This is not a religious order where, just because you have some "geniuses" IQ, you have a free pass! It is EXACTLY what makes science, and especially physics, different from religion - even Nobel laureates will have to make his/her case heard and argue convincingly.

Yes, but they should not have to argue to closed-minded gatekeepers. That is Tipler’s point, and I agree with it. Their papers should not be rejected for the mere reason that the idea within is novel. That places the bar unreasonably high.

The path through science isn't easy - the path to be part of the accepted knowledge is even longer. It is why the accepted laws of physics stays constant and RELIABLE for a long time until there is enough convincing evidence to the contrary. Would you prefer we change our physics as often as some of the diet fads?

I would prefer we change our physics so that, if someone has convincing evidence to the contrary, small-minded gatekeepers cannot squash the paper merely for the “contrary” part.

Part of the process IS the struggle to get published, and get published in respected journal.

That is the status quo, obviously suboptimal. An optimal process does not require a struggle by those with great ideas. Those people are instead free to spend all their working hours coming up with great ideas. Only the ideas themselves go through the struggle. The authors simply release them. The ideas do not get locked into a journal, which let's great ideas in “unrespected” journals become lost to science.

In none of these struggles have there ever, EVER, been any significant ideas or discovery that could not make it into such journals, be it sooner or later.

That is unknowable. You put the cart before the horse. There is no way that anyone can know that no great ideas have been lost to science due to the author losing (or not entering) the battle to get their ideas published.

 

[ZapperZ]

That is unknowable. You put the cart before the horse. There is no way that anyone can know that no great ideas have been lost to science due to the author losing (or not entering) the battle to get their ideas published.

And to me, this is the crux of this whole argument. I am not putting the cart before the horse - you are! You are speculating what possibily have been lost without showing even a single shred of evidence that something like this HAS occured. Do you also think a broken vase will spontaneously reassemble itself into the orginal vase if I throw it onto the floor? The phase space for that to occur is almost too small for you to revolve your life around such possibility. You don't even run your life as if you're WILL win the lottery sometime in your lifetime, even when we have seen ordinary people winning them. We have seen no such instances for the scenario you're proposing, so this is even worse! Yet, you STILL want us to devote our resources to consider a possibility that has NEVER happened.

I asked you way earlier in the "Abstract" thread if you, yourself would consider what you have submitted seriously, when faced with TONS and tons of material coming in weekly for you to review and the circumstances of who you are. You said "no". Now this is even BEFORE you review the work being submitted. And when you submit your paper to Science, you are just ASKING for an outright rejection. Why would you do such a dumb thing? What is wrong with working your way UP? We all had to do that! Or are you simply interested in dissing the system and this rejection is just the excuse you need to be able to do that?

I find your approach to trying to establish your work to be VERY insincere. If I'm trying to coming with something in which I (i) have no formal expertise in and (ii) haven't established my reputation, the LAST thing I want to do is come out like gangbusters and proclaim that everyone should pay attention to me. What kind of a hoax is that? This has NOTHING to do with physics, or astronony, or even science. Do this in ANY area of human endeavor and you will be treated the a pariah. Did you try to talk to an expert in the field and get his/her opinion on what you had in mind? Did you try to get an expert to, at least, listen to you and comment on your work? And when you have that, did you try to get that person to endorse your work and write an accompanying letter on your behalf to a journal to establish the "validity" of your work? No, you didn't! You didn't even try to get an endorser for the arxiv till recently!

Instead, you went straight to the top, and when you get rejected (something you were already expecting), you acted as if ALL the fault did not lie with you! Consider the possibility that you went about this the WRONG way and stop blaiming others!

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

You are speculating what possibily have been lost without showing even a single shred of evidence that something like this HAS occured.

Ideas lost to science are by definition unavailable to be shown.

Yet, you STILL want us to devote our resources to consider a possibility that has NEVER happened.

When the bar is unreasonably high, when great ideas are rejected for the mere reason of being novel, some loss of them to science is likely. This could happen as easily as the author dying during the battle to be published.

And when you submit your paper to Science, you are just ASKING for an outright rejection. Why would you do such a dumb thing?

This and the rest of your post refer to the "abstract" thread. If you put your comments there, I’ll respond to them.

 

[ZapperZ]

When the bar is unreasonably high, when great ideas are rejected for the mere reason of being novel, some loss of them to science is likely. This could happen as easily as the author dying during the battle to be published.

But WHAT great idea? Yours? You have shown ZERO cases where a 'great' idea WAS rejected and never did appear in such medium.

What I can show is mediocre, awful, and wrong ideas that have been rejected. And this is not a speculation either.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

But WHAT great idea? Yours? You have shown ZERO cases where a 'great' idea WAS rejected and never did appear in such medium.

It is not necessary to show any cases to know that some loss of great ideas to science is likely when the bar for novel ideas is unreasonably high. Obviously, if the bar was gone, then no ideas would be lost, and if the bar were insurmountable then all ideas would be lost. Therefore a bar set too high will likely lose some ideas.

Are you really arguing for a system that rejects novel ideas merely for being novel? Or are you just being argumentative?

 

[brewnog]

Are you really arguing for a system that rejects novel ideas merely for being novel? Or are you just being argumentative?

I don't think he has a problem with novel ideas. Just wrong ones.

 

[ZapperZ]

It is not necessary to show any cases to know that some loss of great ideas to science is likely when the bar for novel ideas is unreasonably high. Obviously, if the bar was gone, then no ideas would be lost, and if the bar were insurmountable then all ideas would be lost. Therefore a bar set too high will likely lose some ideas.

FALSE. I've seen many people posted their "theory" on the 'net as early as 1988! Anyone reading Usenet at that time can tell you this. These people could not get into such journals even if their life depended on it. Yet, after ALL that time, one has claimed they were the first one to discover or formulated anything that is now a part of physics!

And it IS necessary to show such cases. If not, you are claiming something that never happened. You might as well claim that angels are reponsible for the processes in the universe, but they can't be detected because they are in a separate dimension than us. This is not science or a valid claim in science. Add this to what I've claimed that you have the propensity to do, and you're not making this any better.

Are you really arguing for a system that rejects novel ideas merely for being novel? Or are you just being argumentative?

Please don't talk to me about "novel ideas" till you have understood what is meant to be a physicist employed to do research work. For some reason, people like you seem to either ignore, or completely ignorant of the fact that practicing physicists, by definition, are employed to find new things, study things that simply do not have a current explanation, come up with new ideas, or even find something that goes beyond what we understand.

The issue remains that you cannot, not even one, cite an example where a work has been lost due to the current journal system. You have zero evidence to back your claim. This makes it an empty claim. People use way too much discussion/argumentation technique from... oh, let's say politics where handwaving and "persuasive" arguments are sufficient without any proofs to convince and fool people. I would expect people on PF deserve at least something better than just empty speculation without any foundation on evidence.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

For some reason, people like you seem to either ignore, or completely ignorant of the fact that practicing physicists, by definition, are employed to find new things, study things that simply do not have a current explanation, come up with new ideas, or even find something that goes beyond what we understand.

Then how do you explain Tipler’s claim that many ideas that have changed science were initially summarily rejected?

The issue remains that you cannot, not even one, cite an example where a work has been lost due to the current journal system.

I cannot, and to me it’s basic logic as to why. In any case we’ve hashed this one to death.

 

[quantumdude]

If I may...

ZapperZ: The issue remains that you cannot, not even one, cite an example where a work has been lost due to the current journal system.

Zanket: I cannot, and to me it’s basic logic as to why.

How's that? The referees and editors of journals don't have the power to silence independent researchers or destroy all extant copies of their work. It should be especially easy to find works that have been or would be rejected by scientific journals, now that we are in the Information Age. It would take me less than a half hour to produce 10 websites containing such research, and I think you know that.

If your "basic logic" is that scientific work is either passed by the peer-review system or utterly lost, then I'm afraid you are reasoning by a false dichotomy. "Lost to the system" does not mean "lost to the rest of the world". I do not understand why you consistently eschew the request to cite such an example, when a good one would bolster your case so much.

 

[ZapperZ]

Then how do you explain Tipler’s claim that many ideas that have changed science were initially summarily rejected?

And where have these ideas summarily appeared to eventually to have "changed" science? I thought the "lost ideas" never existed per your logic? So how did you know about them? Or is it the case where these "rejected" ideas did appear in peer-reviewed journals eventually, maybe even in a stronger form based on what the authors learned from the initial criticism. You obviously still have not read Koshland's article nor understood what he said about multiple journals.

I cannot, and to me it’s basic logic as to why. In any case we’ve hashed this one to death.

So your logic says you can't produce a single example, yet you believe they exist. And you're not the LEAST be uncomfortable to make such definitive statement of their existence?

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

It should be especially easy to find works that have been or would be rejected by scientific journals, now that we are in the Information Age.

And who is examining those works for worthiness? By “lost” I mean “all but lost”. If one great idea lies in a pile of ten thousand other works, I won’t find it. Likely no one else will either. The best chance for science to benefit from the idea was when it was in the reviewers’ hands.

"Lost to the system" does not mean "lost to the rest of the world".

It can mean “all but lost”. Suppose an author dies in the five year struggle to get a great idea published. Who is going to champion that idea then? It may be findable on Google along with a million other papers, but who will even read it?

I do not understand why you consistently eschew the request to cite such an example, when a good one would bolster your case so much.

I won’t look. If common sense doesn't bolster my case, nothing will.

 

[quantumdude]

Zanket, no one works in a vacuum. If an idea is truly great there will be colleagues and collaborators who will know that it is great and who will want to be recognized for working on it and/or reporting it. Furthermore, there is plenty of informal communication between researchers outside of the journal system, via (among other vehicles) usenet. A person would have to go out of his way to have his ideas not heard by qualified ears these days.

If common sense doesn't bolster my case, nothing will.

That is not true. An example of what you are talking about will bolster your case.

I am with ZapperZ in not seeing any common sense in worrying about the loss of research which you do not know exists, and will not look for.

 

[arildno]

I would like to add that a great, correct scientific idea cannot get "lost" in the way a great work of art can be lost for all eternity.

If the scientific idea is correct but is forgotten/overlooked, then the natural phenomena it manages to describe so well will still be around until the end of time , i.e, there's always possible to rediscover the idea.
This cannot be regarded as true for a great work of art, the production of which is way too dependent on the actual author to allow any exact rewriting.

 

[Zanket]

Zanket, no one works in a vacuum.

Einstein originally did, unless you want to count his friend Besso. You think Besso could have championed Einstein's ideas in his stead? Newton also worked in a vacuum.

How do we know that there are not more "Einsteins" out there today? Wait—let me guess—because I can't show you one!

A person would have to go out of his way to have his ideas not heard by qualified ears these days.

According to evidence given by Tipler (in his paper linked above), that is true only if one is credentialed and the idea is not novel. Otherwise, it will likely be rejected posthaste for those reasons alone; i.e. the idea is not really considered. Tipler makes the point that science nowadays is not amenable to ideas that upset the status quo, because so much rides on that (grant money, careers, etc.).