Re: How did Einstein get published?
- From: "Juan R." <juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:13:19 -0700
On Sep 28, 2:18 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
i} The journal had not referees board. Published papers were not peer-
review.
Are you sure? Can you demonstrate that as fact?
It is a fact Annalen was driven directly by Planck and coeditor Wien.
That 1905 papers by Einstein were not peer-reviewed is well-known in
publishing literature:
{BLOCKQUOTE [1]
Examples where the editors showed the wisdom to publish papers
without
review include:
- Albert Einstein's paper on the special theory of relativity,
issued by
Annalen der Physik in 1905.
}
{BLOCKQUOTE [2]
Albert Einstein´s revolutionary "Annus Mirabilis" papers in the 1905
issue of
Annalen der Physik were not peer-reviewed.
}
ii} Einstein papers were directly accepted by editor Planck, who has
been acused from promoting his own research agenda. The process was
extremely fast since the manuscript was sent in the 30th of June and
published three months later.
That's not "extremely fast". And I think that we have no evidence that what
was published is identical to what was submitted 3 months before (often it
isn't).
This is a difficult topic. The original manuscript was lost. Some
people who saw the original manuscript claim that Einstein did not
sign the manuscript. Others claim that was signed by Einstein and
Mileva (his wife) and others that was only by Einstein. Who would I
trust?
I read some place that manuscript was basically unchanged in print
except some notes added by Planck himself regarding priority issues on
Lorentz. However, since the original was lost, I cannot say more.
iii} When Einstein submitted his first paper to a *peer-reviewed*
journal by 1936.
Which one? - Oh I see, ref.3 -> Physical Review.
Opps! It was not "his first paper to a *peer-reviewed* journal" but
"his first peer-reviewed paper to a *peer-reviewed* journal". Previous
papers by Einstein in the same journal were not peer-reviewed. Only
the June 1936 paper on gravitational waves was.
That surely gives support to your claim that his earlier papers were not
peer reviewed. :))
See also references [1, 2].
Obviously the referee comments were right, Einstein had no idea. The
anonymous referee was also more familiar with gravitational waves that
own Einstein. The whole joke is well-known and reported in physics
today [3].
Thanks that was an interesting read!
Then take also a look to a former editor of the Physical Review
says [3]:
{BLOCKQUOTE
He [Heinz Barschall] explained that the Physical Review had a
regular
policy of accepting papers from recognized physicists at well-known
institutions
without submission to a referee and that he never before had had a
paper sent to a
referee. That included a 1938 theoretical paper he had written with
John Wheeler,
which presented what was perhaps the first solid evidence of very
strong
spin-orbit forces in nuclei.
}
Harald
[1] http://esarda2.jrc.it/bulletin/bulletin_33/01_Editorial.pdf
[2] http://www.pragueforscience.cz/Preface.php
[3] http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-6/p9.html
==========================================================
Note for readers]
Because some past episodes of flamming in sci.physics.relativity, both
comments in my blog and my newsgroup e-mail are disabled.
Note for Bilge, Bill Hobba, Dono (once Karandash2), Eric Gisse, Dir
Van der moortel, and Tim Shuba]
Avoid to reply this message. The capacity of any human for correcting
your endless conceptual nonsenses and foolish mathematical mistakes
is, unfortunately, just finite. Also my occupations do not include to
teach you to read others, not to teach you dimensional analysis or
even pre-university physics.
Since you will be sanely ignored here in thereafter you are open to
misread, misquote, or misinterpret me in any way you want, specially
when that adds some light to your grey existence. You are open to
write any triviality; to invent any mistake I did not really did. You
can cite discredited, outdated, or wrong references. You can
manipulate, misread, or ignore references contradicting you. You are
also open to address any insult you consider supports your points and
you can, of course, extend your insults to any poster, institution,
colleague, friend, theories, or journal discrediting you.
You can also try to falsify ratings, voting against me dozens or
several hundred of times simulating different people. You can use the
same dishonest tactic for increasing the rating of your akins.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How did Einstein get published?
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: How did Einstein get published?
- From: Pmb
- Re: How did Einstein get published?
- References:
- How did Einstein get published?
- From: Randy Poe
- How did Einstein get published?
- Prev by Date: Re: How did Einstein get published?
- Next by Date: Re: How did Einstein get published?
- Previous by thread: Re: How did Einstein get published?
- Next by thread: Re: How did Einstein get published?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
