Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35
  1. #16
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad
    Imagine you are receiving your paper back with "Yeah, it looks right but the majourity of the readers will not find it interesting".
    That can happen in maths (or any discipline) if you submit it to the wrong journal. In applied maths it can happen if you submit it to a science journal because you think the results will be interesting to the audience but sometimes the audience just say "no".

    What you say is even true applied maths journals which may reject a paper that is mathematically correct if it isn't sufficiently motivated. The answer will be "Yeah looks right but publish it in a pure maths journal".

    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad
    The quatative result is that the acceptance rate for most journals in math is not less than 50%. In Economics the acceptance rate for a good journal is 10%, for a top journal it is less than 5 %.
    I heard there was a study which showed that interdisciplinary variation in rejection rates had more to do with consensus than anything else.

    Edit: I also suspect that top maths journals acceptance rates are less than 50%. I remember reading somewhere that Proc. Roy Soc Series A is around 20%.

    Additional Edit: Interestingly, I read in a recent (2009) editorial the Sir Michael Berry reports that the rejection rate has been brought down from 80%+ to 72% which he feels is more appropriate. http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o...2009.0535.full
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #17
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    That can happen in maths (or any discipline) if you submit it to the wrong journal. In applied maths it can happen if you submit it to a science journal because you think the results will be interesting to the audience but sometimes the audience just say "no".

    What you say is even true applied maths journals which may reject a paper that is mathematically correct if it isn't sufficiently motivated. The answer will be "Yeah looks right but publish it in a pure maths journal".
    I was talking about a well motivated paper which was sent to the right journal.
    In Economics it is very common to get a paper rejected even though the result is right, the topic is right for the journal, the paper is well-motivated. The referees can just say that it is not interesting. They can also say that it contradicts their intuition which means it must be wrong.

    The full process is very subjective. That leads to the situation when there are groups of scientists united in coalitions that support each other and reject papers of others. I think this is what the author of the article was talking about and I can confirm that it is quite common in Economics.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind

    I heard there was a study which showed that interdisciplinary variation in rejection rates had more to do with consensus than anything else.
    I personally would not think this result makes any sense. It is all about how much value you get from a publication. If you publish just one paper in one of the top Economics journals you are pretty much guaranteed to become a full prof in a few years in one of the top 8 Australian Universities, that is a permanent job with a salary 150+. Yes, you will probably need more than 1 paper altogether, but other papers will not be that difficult to publish. The real problem is to publish that top five paper and only a few people can do that and that is why it is only 5% acceptance rate.

  3. #18
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,105
    When I was at ANU one of my profs told me the following story.
    He submitted a paper to a journal and got it rejected. He received two reports. One was saying that the paper is trivial and this is why it needs to be rejcted. The other report was saying that the paper is wrong. He was trying to argue with the editor that it is impossible. It is either trivial and correct or non-trivial and wrong. It can't be both trivial and wrong. Anyway, that did not help, the paper was still rejected.

  4. #19
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad
    When I was at ANU one of my profs told me the following story.
    He submitted a paper to a journal and got it rejected. He received two reports. One was saying that the paper is trivial and this is why it needs to be rejcted. The other report was saying that the paper is wrong. He was trying to argue with the editor that it is impossible. It is either trivial and correct or non-trivial and wrong. It can't be both trivial and wrong. Anyway, that did not help, the paper was still rejected.
    Maybe both are simultaneously possible in Economics.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #20
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    11,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad
    I was talking about a well motivated paper which was sent to the right journal.
    In Economics it is very common to get a paper rejected even though the result is right, the topic is right for the journal, the paper is well-motivated. The referees can just say that it is not interesting. They can also say that it contradicts their intuition which means it must be wrong.

    The full process is very subjective. That leads to the situation when there are groups of scientists united in coalitions that support each other and reject papers of others. I think this is what the author of the article was talking about and I can confirm that it is quite common in Economics.




    .
    This is a problem not with economics only, but also with other academic fields of research
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Relating to a argument about flagrant errors in a recent peer-reviewed article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ):

    Quote Originally Posted by Spokesperson for BMJ
    “... the BMJ is well aware that its peer review process is flawed,” says Spagat. “A recent study, whose authors include the journal’s current editor, revealed that, on average, only a third of the ‘major errors’ deliberately inserted in a BMJ article were picked up by reviewers.”
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  7. #22
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snail King
    Relating to a argument about flagrant errors in a recent peer-reviewed article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ):
    This is only really surprising if you assume that the peer review peocess finds all errors in a manuscript. As already noted in this thread it doesn't. Further as a means of finding deliberately misleading "errors", peer-review works very poorly.

    In the study you (sort of but not really cite, it can be read here) the reviewers did pick up around 1/3 of the errors and so the process did improve the quality of the material that went through the process.

    I do note however that the barrow-pushing people like O'Leary at Uncommon Descent are trying to make the argument that peer-review is flawed therefore intelligent design in true. Where he says in part...

    In what other line of work would such incompetence be accepted? Would you like your electrician to achieve only this level of competence? He only “gets” one third of the electrical safety hazards in your home?

    However, the peer-review process is not designed to find all errors in every paper. And further his electrical analogy breaks done because there are other processes (like letters to the editor, communication between researchers and the reproduction of results by other researchers) which also find errors and are more suited to finding deliberately misleading statements. If peer-review was the only quality check than I would have to agree that one third is not many.

    O'Leary finishes that article with a classic piece of wishful thinking...

    Anyway, the intelligent design controversy is hardly the only area where peer review can merely maintain a convenient consensus – or tweak beards in a politically correct way.

    I'm not sure if that was ment to be self-satire but I found it very amusing.

    Yes peer-review does stop completely unscientific clap-trap from being published because the errors in ID articles one sees on the web or trotted out in their in-house pseudoscientific magazines are are so obvious they can hardly be missed. Their methodology is "we know the truth so lets find the fact that we can say supports that and add epicycles to explain everything that doesn't". Instead of asking "which hypothesis best explains all the observations?"

    "Science" is a lot easier when you already "know" the answers. I guess that is the attraction. But since peer-review is an inconvient hurdle for the ID conspiracy theorists, and so they do try to put it down as much as possible.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #23
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    I subscribed to this journal some time ago, but I haven't received anything yet:

    http://www.math.pacificu.edu/~emmons/JofUR/

    The JofUR solicits any and all types of manuscript: poetry, prose, visual art, and research articles. You name it, we take it, and reject it. Your manuscript may be formatted however you wish. Frankly, we don't care.

    After submitting your work, the decision process varies. Often the Editor-in-Chief will reject your work out-of-hand, without even reading it! However, he might read it. Probably he'll skim. At other times your manuscript may be sent to anonymous referees. Unless they are the Editor-in-Chief's wife or graduate school buddies, it is unlikely that the referees will even understand what is going on. Rejection will follow as swiftly as a bird dropping from a great height after being struck by a stone. At other times, rejection may languish like your email buried in the Editor-in-Chief's inbox. But it will come, swift or slow, as surely as death. Rejection.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  9. #24
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,562
    The JofUR solicits any and all types of manuscript: poetry, prose, visual art, and research articles. You name it, we take it, and reject it. Your manuscript may be formatted however you wish. Frankly, we don't care.

    After submitting your work, the decision process varies. Often the Editor-in-Chief will reject your work out-of-hand, without even reading it! However, he might read it. Probably he'll skim. At other times your manuscript may be sent to anonymous referees. Unless they are the Editor-in-Chief's wife or graduate school buddies, it is unlikely that the referees will even understand what is going on. Rejection will follow as swiftly as a bird dropping from a great height after being struck by a stone. At other times, rejection may languish like your email buried in the Editor-in-Chief's inbox. But it will come, swift or slow, as surely as death. Rejection.

    AC
    it is obviously a furfy by the editor

  10. #25
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,562
    http://www.skepticink.com/incredulou...ference-redux/

    Interesting because about evolutionary psychology
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  11. #26
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    It doesn't have anything to do with peer-review unless you call Edward Clint's article an example of peer-review of Rebecca Watson's talk, which in some sense it was.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  12. #27
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,490
    I am pleased to report that the only article I have ever submitted to an academic journal was published - but after a peer review process that lasted about a year. The original article was rejected but with suggestions for changes which would make it more acceptable. You can find my article on Governor FitzRoy's debentures and their part in his sacking as Governor of New Zealand in the New Zealand Journal of History.
    This article was the conclusion of a several year study originally intended to be an MA thesis but never completed due to marriage and the subsequent death of our twins- which substantially changed our priorities.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly playing at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  13. #28
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    11,096
    Peer-review is a standard process for all of the academic publications so whether we like the process or not - it is unavoidable
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  14. #29
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,989
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...-review-fraud/

    107 cancer papers retracted due to peer-review fraud in which the author of the paper uses a fake email address to nominate a crony (or potentially themselves) as the peer-reviewer and there is no effective peer review.

    The smoking gun? The fake reviews tended to be submitted on time!

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    11,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...-review-fraud/

    107 cancer papers retracted due to peer-review fraud in which the author of the paper uses a fake email address to nominate a crony (or potentially themselves) as the peer-reviewer and there is no effective peer review.

    The smoking gun? The fake reviews tended to be submitted on time!
    Not that I am surprised to read this . Too many people take ''publish or perish'' approach to an extreme
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Does God Exist?
    By Paul S in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 5602
    Last Post: 18-07-2018, 09:19 PM
  2. Origins - Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism
    By Spiny Norman in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 789
    Last Post: 01-06-2017, 06:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •