Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 12/03/04 

Date: 03 Dec 2004 09:48:16 GMT

 Eugene Shubert:
>Eugene Shubert wrote
>http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=965
>
>Rage Bilge wrote:
>> Let me give you a few hints. (1) Try reading a few ajp articles and
>> note the submission dates and acceptance dates.
>
>I think it's courteous to send out an automated thank you notice for
>submissions received. I obviously didn't get one.
 
  Let me give you another hint. You are submitting an article to
a journal. There are apparently enough authors who are also interested
in publishing in the same journal, that all are willing to assign their
copyright over for the privilege. So you have a choice. You can decide
you don't really want to publish in that journal and give the editor
a sound thrashing for what you perceive as a discourtesy, or you could
try reading their responses in which I believe you were told that your
article had been received and to wait until they contact you, like
every other author. I'm not suggesting which alternative is best,
since that's up to you. Just accept

>> (3) If you really want them to
>> remember you, then you can either write a really outstanding article
>> or you can go on pestering them to hurry up as you are doing. The
>> latter method is not the best choice unless you want the editor to
>> accomodate you by hurrying up and rejecting it.
>
>I don't mind a hurried rejection notice.

  You appear to have missed my point, which was not that you succeeded
in expedited a response. I'm suggesting that after badgering him, he
might have decided on the spot to accomodate your wish to have an answer
``right now.'' If you thought two months was bad, then don't submit
anything to phys rev, unless you submit it as a rapid communication to
prl.
 
>I just don't approve of
>mealy-mouthed rejections. If the editor doesn't have the courage
>to confirm or deny in clear language that extracting a Lorentzian
>transformation from the Galilean transformation is remarkable,
>then that isn't peer review.
 
  Neither the editor nor the referees judge papers using words like
``remarkable'', though some might not hesitate to use words like
``crap,'' when applicaple. The editors decide if a paper address
the audience to whom the journal decides is its audience. The referees
provide expertise in the way of a recommendation, which could be
anything from unqualified acceptance, to suggesting some changes
prior to acceptance to flat out rejection. If you really want an
honest opinion rather than a diplomatic response, keep sending
email.

  I really don't know why you don't understand the objections
to your article. You've received enough replies on this newsgroup
to realize a number of problems with your article. You can either
continue to believe everyone but you is an idiot or else take
a closer look at your article and try to fix it.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP
    ... >> note the submission dates and acceptance dates. ... >> latter method is not the best choice unless you want the editor to ... prior to acceptance to flat out rejection. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Fantasy fans...
    ... I'm told it was rejected fifty times, and that with today's submission ... that would have been one rejection per year at best. ... And the editor from the major publishing house who has got my WIP has had ... and dumped the backlog on him to clean up. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Coping with Rejection
    ... Moira Allen is the editor and publisher of Writing-World.com, ... of Starting Your Career as a Freelance Writer, ... Strategies to Advance Your Writing Career. ... Coping with Rejection ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Jack Tomsky is unable to interpret Test Hypotheses RESULTS
    ... thinks he can construct acceptance and rejection regions without reference to data and ... constructs an hypothesis testing strategy so that an individual hypothesis can simultaneously be both rejected and accepted. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
    ... The present editor wants mathematics underlying everything, ... Often publishing your work mean selecting an editor more ... there is penals on mainstream journals for that. ... governs acceptance of new ideas, but I'm pretty sure it's not that. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)