Re: merits of Lisp vs Python


Rob Thorpe ha escrito:

* Cost - It actually costs money to publish in many journals. $50-$100
per page is the rate the IEEE often charge.

True in Black and white or even more expensive when adding fixed
quantity per article. Adds $300-600 per figure in color.

* 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.

True. I know of an editor of a journal of physics cannot publishs stuff
on X, no matter good or wrong the article is. Simply is not even sent
to referees. Often publishing your work mean selecting an editor more
akin to your field, 'no' matter journal him was.

* 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.

Yes, there is penals on mainstream journals for that. As 150$ per page
in excess beyond 12 pages.

* 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.

And when the editor misread you wrote? That can be funy!

* Burden of proof - Often journals require a large amount of evidence
before publishing something.

Top-level journals may maintain a reputation (and an index :-) and
editors prefer do not publish a revolution rather than publish
something wrong. Therein if editor or referees express doubts about
your article either because is complex or because is a hot debated
topic with multiple points of view then your work probably will be
rejected.

Editor of Physical Review said me that they do not usually publish
material on foundations of physics. That is, 'tacitally' they 'asume'
that foundations of physics are beyond doubt for the ambit of that
journal, and only admit 'mainstream' papers, no revolution there.

* Professional memberships - Several journals are affiliated to
professional organisations and require member to join or pay even more
to publish through them.

Yes, a paper can got published or rejected in function of political
issues. In PNAS several articles were published because members'
privileges. Also ArXiv has a kind of blacklist rejecting articles from
certain authors no matter the work is either fascinating or stupid.

I know also some important people (Nobel laureates and similar) got
their papers published more easy.

* 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.

Ejem, the article by the student is usually published as "master et
al." That is the master adds the name to the article even if
contribution was small or zero.

You often read of some big boys with publication record of 500-700
articles, but after you discover he has 50 full-time coworkers...

* 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.

right I was that in PLA recenly, once editor passed away, the journal
no more accepted articles on that topic close to editor work.

* 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.

Yes i read there is data on this kind of behavior, Also read referees
rejecting some article but using priviligiated knowledge of ideas on
the paper for own article.

* Taste - Read the journal, find out what the editors like, reemphasis
your work accordingly

Ask a colleague where published him...

* Length - Split things into parts. I've seen several papers spanned
over multiple months recently

good for CV...

* Language barrier - Find some native english speakers, get them to
read it. Native English writers are better than just readers.

Ask some native colleague.

* Complexity - Split things across several papers. Deal with a simple
case first, then a more complex one.

Think that editor and referre are stupid. This usually works.

* 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.

I think that this is always true on science, where _anything_ is always
open to debate.

* 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.

Find some colleague with good contacts...

* 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.

So usual...

Many of these problems can also be dealt with in another way: by using
Conferences.

Hum, some begin to obtain similar problems and prefer to reject polemic
contributions

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.

I think is exception, but one may recognize that expertise also can be
wrong.

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.

I agree with history perseverance is the key for revolutions. All
revolutions i know in physics or chemistry needed of decades before
being mainstream accepted.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Independance Day.
    ... The magazine has been published continuously ... "Haig continued as editor for three more years, ... single-sheet newsletter than today's 20-page slick covered ... Desktop Publishing using computers didn't exist 50 years ago! ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Independance Day.
    ... not work on it and PHOTOSHOP is not that old? ... "Haig continued as editor for three more years, ... newsletter than today's 20-page slick covered magazine). ... Desktop Publishing using computers didn't exist 50 years ago! ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: two questions [crit]
    ... if on the other hand I make myself subservient to the publishing ... I might as well not bother writing to begin with because ... editor insists on them, the story is a little less yours, but how much ... manuscripts and deciding whether to accept them. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: A Question From An Outsider
    ... Have you studied writing at any post high school level? ... For one thing, there is no editor, and that is a big problem for most new authors. ... (You don't get to rant at editors and publishing houses as Martha Grimes (Foul Matter) ... Given the sensory input from the big guys, it is very difficult for a potential reader to even know of the existence of of POD author, let alone make a choice to buy. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Article: How to be in the Right Place at the Right Time
    ... My writing improved the most after I had finished a full draft of the whole ... I kept attending writing conferences and workshops. ... The editor attended the reading. ... Publishing is a tough, ...
    (misc.writing)