Re: JSH: Attacking the conclusion

From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 06/19/04 

Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:08:27 +0200

akolowski@hotmail.com (Andrzej Kolowski) writes:

> But somehow now his solipsism has prevailed. APF "passed peer review",
> although it is clear now that there was never any peer review,
> and that the editor of the electronic journal to which he submitted
> it accidentally put it in the wrong electronic pile.

I don't see how that's clear at all.

What makes you say so?

Did James receive any referee reports? If so, perhaps he can post
them. If not, I still wouldn't know how your story is clearly
correct. 

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes
"[I]t's the damndest thing.  There's something wrong with every last
one of you, and I *never* thought that was a possibility.  But now I
feel it's the only reasonable conclusion." --JSH sees some sorta light

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... >of the editor, rounding of edges for public consumption likely ... >was not providing a peer review is contradictory, ... >dog's breakfast = Response to Eric's fabrications with Eric is ... >pretense and diversive responses cannot create and escape ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Publishing Papers
    ... Whether it is possible or not may also depend on how the editor views your cover letter and what kind of letterhead imprint is on it and whether you have a title/position of some kind under your signature that would be consistent with the author _not_ having the letters "PhD" after the name. ... The editor might give the manuscript a cursory glance and pay attention to style details, how the abstract was written, possibly the reference list, in making a judgement to pass it on to reviewers or a monitoring editor, or returning it to you unreviewed with some kind of remark about its "suitability" for publication. ... Science and Nature return about 90% of their submitted manuscripts, unreviewed, even if they come from faculty at Harvard and MIT, and a few other journals do this, too. ... You used the term "reputable journal" where you probably should be asking whether there are journals that publish without peer review, only with peer review, or journals with peer review that are high impact journals, where the rejection takes place 90% of the time before the review rather than after the review. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: Dear John
    ... INADEQUACIES OF PEER REVIEW ... most scientists published their views ... the Holy Office of modern science, ... who is review editor of the "Regional ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Dear John
    ... INADEQUACIES OF PEER REVIEW ... most scientists published their views ... the Holy Office of modern science, ... who is review editor of the "Regional ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: JSH: Fraud alert, journal editors and reviewers
    ... Andrzej Kolowski wrote: ... How can the editor of a journal withdraw ... Jose Carlos Santos ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast