Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Juan R. wrote:
Wade Humeniuk ha escrito:
Juan R. wrote:
Wade Humeniuk ha escrito:
<snip>
Already in the Nature ed i cited are recognized more than 20 Nobel
laureates's rejections in general. Moreover, they do the mea culpa in a
number of sound rejections from own Nature.

I've worked for several years now in Electromagnetics, radio
propagation and antennas. These subjects are close to physics and use
referred journals widely. They suffer from many of the problems of
referred journals in general. The problems go beyond rejecting things
that are unacceptable because of content. The problems I've seen are,
in no particular order:-
* Cost - It actually costs money to publish in many journals. $50-$100
per page is the rate the IEEE often charge.
* Taste - Editors have a particular taste about what they like.
Earlier editors of the journal "Transactions of Antennas and
Propagation" took anything to do with those subjects that was good.
The present editor wants mathematics underlying everything, so the
whole style of the journal has changed.
* Length - Publishing something that's long is very difficult. Science
periodicals are exactly that, periodicals, magazines. They are
targetted to attract readers not progress science. Readers don't want
one issue filled with a single author.
* Language barrier - This is a big problem today. If you can't explain
yourself well in the language of the journal (normally english) you
will get your submissions returned. Probably the article won't be
rejected, just returned with a note telling you to improve the
language.
* Complexity - Something containing lots of very involved mathematics
can be difficult to publish if none of the editors can understand it,
or can find the time to understand it. Probably it will be published,
but will lie in the hands of editors for more than a year, and when
published few will read it and understand it.
* Burden of proof - Often journals require a large amount of evidence
before publishing something.
* Professional memberships - Several journals are affiliated to
professional organisations and require member to join or pay even more
to publish through them.
* Acolyte nepotism - The reputation of Academics is built by their work
and that of their students. A student and his master have a common
interest in promoting themselves, since their reputations rub-off on
each other. As a result editors frequently run long articles by their
students.
* Subject "nepotism" - Strange idea, but it happens a lot. If an
editor is working on a particular subject he will often consider it
"the way forward", and will as a result they tend to publish stuff that
goes in the direction they want to know.
* Flagrant dishonesty - I get the impression this is very rare. But I
have heard it said from others that journal editors have stolen ideas
sitting in their slushpiles. Also that they have used those ideas for
the basis of patents. I think it's quite unlikely and the most likely
explanation when it appears to have happened is that more than one
person has had the same idea at the same time.

There is also a big problem when you get something published:
_readership_. Most scientists are busy on their own work, and they do
not follow the work of others that closely. Readership is
almost-always small.

Of the other problems I don't think any of them are insummountable.
Some possible solutions:-
* Cost - Find a cheap journal. Write something short.
* Taste - Read the journal, find out what the editors like, reemphasis
your work accordingly
* Length - Split things into parts. I've seen several papers spanned
over multiple months recently
* Language barrier - Find some native english speakers, get them to
read it. Native English writers are better than just readers.
* Complexity - Split things across several papers. Deal with a simple
case first, then a more complex one.
* Burden of Proof - Hard to deal with. Some journals will find it
acceptable if the authors temper their findings by stating that much
further work is needed to confirm them.
* Professional memberships - Work out which organisation provides the
best value for money. Find someone who has professional membership and
add their name to the paper this often allows it to be published at
members rates.
* Subject "nepotism" - Find a fashionable subject to link your work to.
Often sentences like "This could be usefully applied to X" are common
even if they are not entirely true.
* Acolyte nepotism - Can't really be avoided. One good idea is to get
a notable person in the field to read the paper and check it, then put
his name last on the authors.
* Flagrant dishonesty - Find out what other scientists think of various
editors and journals.

Many of these problems can also be dealt with in another way: by using
Conferences.
Rules at conferences are much laxer, people can do fairly much anything
they like in poster papers. Also, at conference people have time to
read papers. By putting in poster papers you get the chance to polish
your work by asking the bunch of readers in front of you what they
think. They can often tell you more about prior work, and advise on
how to go further. If you can afford to go to a conference, then this
is the best opportunity for presenting really new work. Also, at a
poster session you can hand out what you like, so have a your best work
printed out on paper separate to the posters and hand it to those
interested.

Also often some expertises valuates some work as wrong and then author
is considered a cranck before being recognized as brilliant.

I don't think that's a very common problem. The more common problem is
being considered to have little experience in the subject matter.

If revolution is large then can be needed decades entires before the
work begin to be aknowledged.

For large revolutions what change is that old guys dead and a new
generation of scientists born are trained in the new paradigm. For the
new generation the new paradigm is considered to be 'normal'. Old guys
usually never accept the new paradigm, therein the quote from the wiki.

I don't think this is true. In my experience acceptance of new
paradigms doesn't depend at all on age. I don't really know what
governs acceptance of new ideas, but I'm pretty sure it's not that.

Just because some people assert there is a problem, does not mean there is
one.

It is not some people there is strong movement for search of new
publication systems in different comunities. Jus that Nature (a very
conservative journal) accepts limitations in traditional peer review
system is a sign.

FWIW I think there is a problem in some areas. Cost is a big problem.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
    ... number of sound rejections from own Nature. ... referred journals in general. ... Taste - Editors have a particular taste about what they like. ... * Complexity - Split things across several papers. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: The future of academic publishing
    ... Researchers are used to publishing papers in traditional journals: ... Well, tolls, at least in this case, pay only about 20% of the cost. ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: Scientists leave out data to produce bogus findings
    ... World » More ... Asia Europe Earnings Economy Health Law Autos Management Media ... reproducing claims made by medical journals. ... by publishing splashy papers, typically containing positive findings, ...
    (talk.politics.medicine)
  • Re: What would it take?
    ... > they peer review and they're listed) which after nine months told me ... You were treated unfairly by the editors at ... the algebraic integers, in common with 5. ... a big ad in a national paper, write to the editors of all journals ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: information suppression by universities
    ... IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the ... publishing copyrighted standards and journals. ... The cost of actually printing the journals is significant, ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)