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

[Monique]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v390/n6659/full/390427b0_fs.html

That is the first time I see that, I never quite got the concept of Arxiv as in biology it is not used; the guidelines are as I described. The link explains:

In other areas, where the communities are larger and the variability in quality and sheer volume of preprinted material somewhat daunting, preprint servers are active but appear to be considered less useful for those reasons.

Scientific communication is speeded up with the fact that journals now publish electronic pre-prints several days after a manuscript has been accepted. There are some unfortunate cases where manuscripts are rejected by grumpy reviewers, but I'd hesitate to dive into unreviewed archives.

 

[ZapperZ]

Scientific communication is speeded up with the fact that journals now publish electronic pre-prints several days after a manuscript has been accepted. There are some unfortunate cases where manuscripts are rejected by grumpy reviewers, but I'd hesitate to dive into unreviewed archives.

I don't use the unreviewed preprints in the arxiv servers as "references" in terms of scientific content, unless I already know the authors or groups that those work came from. In those cases, I can usually tell the "validity" of the work and how careful results coming from such a group are usually obtained. This is where knowing the history of the subject area is important. But most people do not have such knowledge on deciding which is which. I also do not use as references articles from people I am not familiar with and would certain wait till that particular manuscript appears in print.

The exception so far to this rule is those in the String/Superstring/etc. area where the Arxiv has almost taken over as the preferred means to communicate. Maybe it's due to the nature of the field or the fact that a lot of "conjectures" are being made, but the arxiv is a very common citation references in many of such papers and presentation. However, keep in mind that this is a VERY small section of physics [I will refrain on giving my personal opinion on that subject area].

The moral of the story is, people who don't know any better should NOT rely on Arxiv as their source of information. It is more suited for those who are working in the subject area.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

You are forgetting that I have a rather obvious and tested evidence: the advancement of physics so far (at least within the past 100 years) have come SOLELY via the communication through peer-reviewed journals!

I don’t dispute that, but it seems irrelevant unless I take it to mean that, because of that, a paper published outside of a peer-reviewed journal has a nil chance of being read by physicists. Is that what you mean?

The arxiv is the quickest way to know what people are up to, especially your competitors in the field. It, however, is not the source that one wants to use to base one's entire set of knowledge.

It seems that arxiv just needs to add journal-quality peer-reviewed sections to satisfy your need and put the journals out of business.

Again, I will challenge anyone to show where something that has only appeared in such a medium has made any significant impact in advancing the body of knowledge. Till that can be shown, I don't see how it can rivaled, even anywhere near, the peer-reviewed system.

That’s putting the cart before the horse. If someone had an idea and didn’t have the credentials even for arxiv, it seems to me that forums like this one are decent places to post it. Even forums like this, being that some professional physicists (or impending ones) are here, are a form of peer review. Just look at how fast the bad ideas are shot down here, saving the poster the bureaucracy and long wait of a journal.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don’t dispute that, but it seems irrelevant unless I take it to mean that, because of that, a paper published outside of a peer-reviewed journal has a nil chance of being read by physicists. Is that what you mean?

That, and a whole lot of others. 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. So why would I want to waste my time reading something that would amount to nothing? If it has any relevance, or any CHANCE to even be considered to be either valid or any signficance, it would have appeared in a peer-reviewed journals. Just think of how many papers a typical physicist read, and figure out of one wants to waste time reading something that is not even published, especially considering the historical records.

It seems that arxiv just needs to add journal-quality peer-reviewed sections to satisfy your need and put the journals out of business.

Then this is no different than any peer-reviewed journals! Most physics journals already put their stuff out on the web. Adding peer-reviewed to Arxiv would make then no different.

You are also forgetting that journals such as PRL, Nature, and Science not just select and publish "high-impact" papers, they also have their publicity machines that advertizes and highlights some of the papers that they publish. It is why those 3 journals are the most sought-after publications for physics. A medium for publication just doesn't get the prestigue and respect overnight out of nothing.

That’s putting the cart before the horse. If someone had an idea and didn’t have the credentials even for arxiv, it seems to me that forums like this one are decent places to post it. Even forums like this, being that some professional physicists (or impending ones) are here, are a form of peer review. Just look at how fast the bad ideas are shot down here, saving the poster the bureaucracy and long wait of a journal.

But this is purely conjecture! We have had arguments like this for as long as I can remember (do a search on PF if you don't believe me). Point out to me a case where someone with a valid work in physics that could not put it out in a peer-reviewed journal because of lack of "credientials", and have managed to use forums such as this as a stepping stone to "credibility". I put it to you that what you imagined has not happened.

Using a forum such as this to work out an idea is a rather dubious way to go about something like this. How do you know the credentials of the person who's responding? Is that person an expert in that area of physics even though he/she has a "Science Advisor" medal? Besides, quacks have very seldom pay any particular attention to valid physical arguments - please visit the TD section of you don't believe me. Instead, forums such as this is a means for them to advertize their flaky idea and websites. It is the only means for what they do to see the light of day.

I suggest you look at a typical 'work' in the TD section and figure out the amount of effort required to apply "a form of peer-review" that you have in mind. If you are able to sustain the same level of effort for a month straight, then we'll talk.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

Why wouldn’t a copyright provide the same or better level of protection? Unpublished works can be registered for a copyright. An unpublished work is no more or less protected than a published work. It seems to me that a “bigger and better funded lab” would lose credibility hence future funding if it tried to retain originator status for work legally held as prior by a copyright registration, so they wouldn’t do it. Then it seems that discussing such a copyrighted theory in an open forum such as this is no more a risk (and probably less risk) than discussing such an uncopyrighted theory in a scientific meeting accompanied by a published abstract. What do you think?

Also, anything discussed in this forum is published to an audience in electronic form, which is recognized as a valid form of publishing hence copyrighted by default by the US copyright office. The advantage to registering is primarily to get a government-issued timestamp in advance. But if someone discussed an original idea here, and it was subsequently scooped by a big lab, US courts would defer to the prior work if the forum timestamp were deemed reliable (a bigger if than I’d rely on).

I'm not sure the purpose of obtaining a copyright on flawed work. If the idea you publish is flawed, there's nothing to stop someone from building upon that to identify the flaws and publish something better. They can cite your work for your original idea, but what does it accomplish to have a citation that points out that you were wrong?

If I discuss an idea with someone else, any thoughts they contribute that help me, I need to acknowledge and give them credit for; if it is substantial, then they will be a co-author on the publication, and if it is minor, I will mention them in the acknowledgments section. The same would apply here. Once you put up the idea for discussion, any contributions you receive that help you modify your idea or design an improved experiment need to be acknowledged and credit given to those discussing it. If you missed something and they supplied that missing detail, that key detail is not your idea but theirs, and they are free to use it.

In generally, however, ideas that are the product of discussion, where two or more people are all providing input, are very hard to disentangle with regard to ownership. Unless there is a prior agreement of collaboration and/or co-authorship, the ideas that come out as a product of a discussion would most likely be considered a collective idea rather than something individually owned, thus are free for anyone participating in that group to use as they wish. If I approach someone else to discuss an idea with them, perhaps someone in that bigger and better equipped lab, the conversation usually begins with a statement, "I have an idea that I think you can help me with, would you be interested in a possible collaboration?" As the discussion continues, if indeed they are able to help out and have the set-up needed to do the work I can't do myself, then we not only discuss the general idea of collaboration, but follow up with, "If you do ... work/experiments for me, I will include you as a co-author on any manuscripts that result from this work." This is the verbal contract that protects our shared ideas as shared. If this is not part of the conversation, they are free to do what they want with the product of our discussion, as they are equal owners of those ideas.

 

[Moonbear]

That’s putting the cart before the horse. If someone had an idea and didn’t have the credentials even for arxiv, it seems to me that forums like this one are decent places to post it. Even forums like this, being that some professional physicists (or impending ones) are here, are a form of peer review. Just look at how fast the bad ideas are shot down here, saving the poster the bureaucracy and long wait of a journal.

No, this is not a way around peer-review. For one, those who are here who are qualified to be peer reviewers are already doing so for journals, and are not going to take time away from those to waste time on an idea that's not even worked out enough to be submitted to one of those other journals. Second, there is absolutely no assurance that among the practicing physicists who visit this site that any of them has expertise in the specific area addressed by your theory sufficient to give you a quality critique. What journals do is for an editor to screen articles by topic and then send them out to suitable reviewers. They aren't just sent randomly to any scientist, they are sent to those who have sufficient expertise in the area addressed by the paper to give a qualified critique. Of course, if you're presenting something so flawed that even those outside your area of expertise can identify major problems, then you have no hope of getting it past the experts. Indeed, they probably won't even waste their time on a detailed critique, but will do the same thing of pointing out a few fatal flaws and reject it. Why pick through details when there's a giant, glaring flaw? Most of those posting in TD have such flaws in what they present, and don't seem to understand that there's no point in going through details when the bigger idea is seriously flawed, yet if you read through the posts there, you will see that over and again, where a major flaw is pointed out and they ignore that comment going on to ask for comment on picky details that is just wasted effort.

 

[Zanket]

Just think of how many papers a typical physicist read, and figure out of one wants to waste time reading something that is not even published, especially considering the historical records.

You don’t read any of the junk here?

Then this is no different than any peer-reviewed journals! Most physics journals already put their stuff out on the web. Adding peer-reviewed to Arxiv would make then no different.

Makes sense.

You are also forgetting that journals such as PRL, Nature, and Science not just select and publish "high-impact" papers, they also have their publicity machines that advertizes and highlights some of the papers that they publish. It is why those 3 journals are the most sought-after publications for physics. A medium for publication just doesn't get the prestigue and respect overnight out of nothing.

Good info.

Point out to me a case where someone with a valid work in physics that could not put it out in a peer-reviewed journal because of lack of "credientials", and have managed to use forums such as this as a stepping stone to "credibility". I put it to you that what you imagined has not happened.

I don’t dispute that. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen though. Supposing lack of credentials is not an issue (as it is on arxiv), journals still have inefficient hurdles. A submitter spends days reformatting a paper to the journal’s exacting specifications and then waits months for a reply, whereas this forum takes plain text and a reply might take only minutes. I think a good idea can transcend the drawbacks of a forum like this, in which case the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Using a forum such as this to work out an idea is a rather dubious way to go about something like this. How do you know the credentials of the person who's responding?

Whether they are qualified seems easy to verify sans credentials, for it’s tough to sound logical while spewing crap.

 

[Zanket]

I'm not sure the purpose of obtaining a copyright on flawed work. If the idea you publish is flawed, there's nothing to stop someone from building upon that to identify the flaws and publish something better. They can cite your work for your original idea, but what does it accomplish to have a citation that points out that you were wrong?

Such idea is flawed regardless how it’s published. But it seems the original idea is still better protected by the copyright method than by the “published abstract in a scientific meeting” method.

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.

No, this is not a way around peer-review. For one, those who are here who are qualified to be peer reviewers are already doing so for journals, and are not going to take time away from those to waste time on an idea that's not even worked out enough to be submitted to one of those other journals.

I see time spent on such ideas by presumably-qualified people here. Poorly-conceived ideas don’t last long here, for example.

Second, there is absolutely no assurance that among the practicing physicists who visit this site that any of them has expertise in the specific area addressed by your theory sufficient to give you a quality critique.

For obscure areas, sure. But if the area is popular, there’s decent assurance.

What journals do is for an editor to screen articles by topic and then send them out to suitable reviewers. They aren't just sent randomly to any scientist, they are sent to those who have sufficient expertise in the area addressed by the paper to give a qualified critique.

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?

Of course, if you're presenting something so flawed that even those outside your area of expertise can identify major problems, then you have no hope of getting it past the experts. Indeed, they probably won't even waste their time on a detailed critique, but will do the same thing of pointing out a few fatal flaws and reject it. Why pick through details when there's a giant, glaring flaw?

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

 

[ZapperZ]

You don’t read any of the junk here?

No, I don't. As soon as something is relegated to the TD section, it might as well not even be on here as far as I'm concerned.

I don’t dispute that. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen though. Supposing lack of credentials is not an issue (as it is on arxiv), journals still have inefficient hurdles. A submitter spends days reformatting a paper to the journal’s exacting specifications and then waits months for a reply, whereas this forum takes plain text and a reply might take only minutes. I think a good idea can transcend the drawbacks of a forum like this, in which case the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

So you're asking for us to consider ALL eventual possibilities, no matter how small or how unlikely it will happen? In this case, the possibility of it occurring is ZERO, based on history. But we just have to accommodate that possibility no matter how extremely it is to occur?? Do you know how unreasonable of a request that sounds?

Whether they are qualified seems easy to verify sans credentials, for it’s tough to sound logical while spewing crap.

Logic has nothing to do with it. I can make things up VERY easily and sound as if I know what I'm talking about. Many quacks are masters at making their arguments vague and ambiguous. There's nothing "illogical" about it. Only someone who is an expert in that particular field would be able to either spot the flaw, or the inconsistencies, or the incrediblly dubious way of how the physics has been mangled. This takes a LOT of effort. I suggest you try your hand at it sometime if you can.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

So you're asking for us to consider ALL eventual possibilities, no matter how small or how unlikely it will happen?

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.

Logic has nothing to do with it. I can make things up VERY easily and sound as if I know what I'm talking about. Many quacks are masters at making their arguments vague and ambiguous. There's nothing "illogical" about it.

A vague and ambiguous argument is illogical, isn’t it? The risk of being fooled can be greatly lowered by getting corroboration. But you have a good point.

 

[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.