Re: A journal for unpublished research?
From: Pieter Kuiper (Pieter.Kuiper_at_msi.vxu.sweden)
Date: 07/02/04
- Next message: alejandro.rivero: "a simpler question, nuclear isospin breaking..."
- Previous message: Oz: "Re: information loss in black holes"
- Maybe in reply to: Doug Sweetser: "Re: A journal for unpublished research?"
- Next in thread: Peter: "Re: A journal for unpublished research?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 2 Jul 2004 05:32:28 -0400
rivero@sol.unizar.es (alejandro.rivero) wrote:
> A close method was to believe on the existence of a separate
> research field, perhaps the spirit of "Foundations of Physics"
> (2002 impact factor 0.443, Immediacy Index 0.086) and
> "Foundations of Physics Letters" (0.495, 0.000).
Today's mail had a request from Alwyn VanderWerwe to review a paper for
Foundations of Physics. I think they have a strange policy:
"Should you recommend the paper for publication without any modification,
there would be no need to elaborate. Should you however recommend its
rejection, then it would be desirable that you specify the grounds on
which you base your verdict."
This paper was 110 pages, no way I am going to read it, let alone work
on a referee report. I am a rather down-to-earth experimental physicist
in solid state, not a member of the "foundations"-crowd. My only
connection with the journal is that I mentioned it in this newsgroup.
Of course we remember that "Foundations of Physics" had a referee who
accepted (but did not publish) Peter Lynds:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lynds>
-- "Electrons damage the brain," said Farish. (Donna Tartt)
- Next message: alejandro.rivero: "a simpler question, nuclear isospin breaking..."
- Previous message: Oz: "Re: information loss in black holes"
- Maybe in reply to: Doug Sweetser: "Re: A journal for unpublished research?"
- Next in thread: Peter: "Re: A journal for unpublished research?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
