Re: Cranks on the endangered species list

On Dec 23, 3:34 pm, bjones <ni...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:47:38 -0800 (PST),

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-snip-



On Dec 23, 12:59 pm, bjones <ni...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How can there be no risk when anyone who sees it could then
steal it? Even that staunch relativist John Baez (who has
steadfastly refused to talk to me) may steal it, and he
could probably get it published next week!

This is a false fear. Papers are not submitted or reviewed
in secret. A great example is arXive.org, where papers are
exposed to public view BEFORE being accepted for publication.
Likewise, if you publish on your own website with a copyright
notice, then your article is protected by law. Think about it.
Reviewers at peer-reviewed journals are just that --- peers.
As such, they could very well reject a paper and then turn
around and write and submit an identical one. This does not
happen. Now ask yourself why that's so.

I'm sorry, your excuses are not very compelling.

PD

I would like for you to be right, and you may be,
but see my below discussion, which follows the
following two brief discussions:

Returning momentarily to your statement that "Many
journals take particular stances on what sorts of
articles they are interested in," I have to wonder
what sort of theoretical or foundational physics
journal would not want to publish a simple proof
that clocks can be (absolutely) synchronized?

Two comments
- That is not for you to question. As I said, the editors own and
exercise sole discretion as their prerogative what gets published in
their journals. If they want it to be from authors all from east of
the Mississippi, then that is completely within their rights.
- You have not yet provided (at least for my eyes) a simple proof that
two clocks can be absolutely synchronized.


And also returning momentarily to your statements that
"There are a number of papers that call SR into question
that are published annually. So then you have to ask
yourself the question what the difference is." I have
already presented the following:

Your personal experience notwithstanding, the fact remains that there
are a number of papers that are published annually that call SR into
question. This indisputable fact should call into question what the
difference in your particular case might be, regardless of what
information you received in feedback. It is apparent that it was not
impossible to find referees to review those papers that have been
published recently and which called SR into question.


[from the editor of Foundations of Physics]
"There are a number of apparent conflicts in STR, but
they have all been resolved by careful analysis. Thus
it is difficult, if not impossible, to find referees
who are prepared to spend any time on finding the flaw
in the paradox of the day."

This was regarding my brief *preliminary* article, the
one that was suppose to prove my credibility, but could
not because it was left unread.

And now, back to the drawing board. Back in Einstein's
day, a complete unknown could easily be published in
the best journal, but today it takes some affiliations,
and an author's affliations protect him from theft when
he submits to either arXive.org or a journal.

I don't know why you think an affiliation protects from theft. What on
earth gave you that idea?

And I don't know that it was true in Einstein's day that a complete
unknown could get published. Einstein was fairly well connected and
had a number of people pulling for him.


And speaking of affliations, look at the following:
'Now-unaffliated Ph.D. has hard time getting published'
"For the author, Gregor Bayer of Cedar Hill, Texas, the
publication was a breakthrough. 'It has been a very hard
struggle for me to get anything published,' he wrote in
an email, though he had another paper in print earlier this
year. 'Fortunately, some good people are beginning to take
me seriously.'

Bayer attributed his troubles to the fact that he doesn't
work for any scientific institution, so other researchers
are reluctant to back his theories. 'I have a Ph.D. in
physics from the University of Chicago,' from 1972, he
wrote; "but I left the field many years ago. As a career,
physics is hell: as a hobby, it is heaven. Ideas come easily
to me now.'"

I don't dismiss the fact that establishing scientific credibility is a
hurdle that accompanies publication. I believe this is one of the
reasons why Wolfram (and other authors) have chosen other avenues to
publication so as not to deal with that hurdle. You seem reticent to
take creative work-around measures where others have, and you are also
quick to lie down and submit in resignation where, for example, Bayer
was more persistent. I honestly don't think you've tried hard enough,
which is why I say you are using barriers as an excuse.


You wrote:
Likewise, if you publish on your own website with a
copyright notice, then your article is protected by law.

But here is the actual law:

'What Is Not Protected By Copyright'

Ideas, Methods, or Systems are not subject to
copyright protection. Copyright protection,
therefore, is not available for: ideas or
procedures for doing, making, or building
things; scientific or technical methods or
discoveries; business operations or procedures;
mathematical principles; formulas, algorithms;
or any other concept, process, or method of
operation.

Section 102 of the copyright law, title 17,
United States Code, clearly expresses this
principle:

"In no case does copyright protection for an
original work of authorship extend to any idea,
procedure, process, system, method of operation,
concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of
the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work."


That is correct. Ideas do not get copyrighted, even in science. So the
question for you is, how do you think attribution works in science
through publication, if publication is not a guarantee of ownership of
an idea? After all, ideas are not unique, and someone can publish
later what was published earlier (in principle), without legal
redress. So how do YOU think it works in science, that this is
generally not a piracy-riddled business?

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Deczky all-pass filter design Matlab
    ... Under the current IEEE cost of memberships there are alternative ... Publication costs after society membership $5-50 per publication ... Your $750 can buy unlimited access to 8 or more journals. ... the papers may land is a very expensive proposition. ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: history of the DDG
    ... impossible to quickly collect, peruse, and compare papers. ... can get quite good at guessing which journals will be free access. ... non-payment will not prevent publication. ... And the scientists play along, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: history of the DDG
    ... They impede progress and the free flow of information. ... Prestigious paper journals are still important for disseminating new research. ... impossible to quickly collect, peruse, and compare papers. ... Unless things have changed mightily the cost for academic journal publication is nominal unless you want to sponsor the front cover, have full colour plates or something exotic like that. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Cranks on the endangered species list
    ... where papers are ... journals take particular stances on what sorts of ... [from the editor of Foundations of Physics] ... copyright protection. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What have they been up to with all that money?
    ... That's particularly the case with large projects, such as particle accelerator labs. ... I knew of a prof who managed to take one set of data and produce three papers from it: half the data in one, the other half in another, and half the data from each of these papers to produce a third. ... I read them and they said essentially the same thing but appeared, as I recall, in three different journals and/or proceedings. ... He could have written one really good paper from it but that wouldn't have helped his publication record as much as three. ...
    (sci.research.careers)