Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis:
ROFLMAO! Was this article reviewed and if so what did the referees say?
I have received a letter:
Dear Dr. Z,

Your manuscript has been considered. We regret to inform you that we have concluded that it is not suitable for publication in Physical Review Letters.

e smile s

.
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
So, it wasn't even sent out for review. Also you failed to appeal this decision, see here.

''AUTHOR APPEALS

Authors may appeal a rejection of their paper by the Editors. In the case of a formal appeal, the paper and all relevant information, including the identities of the referees, will be sent to a member of the Editorial Board. The Board member may review the case on the existing record or may seek additional expert opinion. The Board member will present an advisory opinion to the Editors, which will be sent to authors and/or referees with the Board member's name.

If a Board member has provided a referee report on a paper prior to appeal, another Board member must review the paper on appeal. Authors may suggest those Board members they feel are appropriate (or not appropriate) to conduct the review, but the Editors are not bound by such suggestions. If there is no suitable Board member available, the Editors may appoint an appropriate scientist to consider a paper under appeal as an ad hoc Board member.

The author of a paper that has been rejected subsequent to an Editorial Board review may request that the case be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief of the APS. This request should be addressed to the Editor, who will forward the entire file to the Editor-in-Chief. Such an appeal must be based on the fairness of the procedures followed, and must not be a request for another scientific review. The question to be answered in this review is: Did the paper receive a fair hearing? The decision of the Editor-in-Chief concludes the consideration of the manuscript by the American Physical Society.''

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Sorry, that was for PRD. This is the PRL Author appeals process:

http://prl.aps.org/info/polprocl.html#appeals

''Appeals
Authors may appeal a rejection of their paper by the editors. In the case of a formal appeal, the paper and all relevant information, including the identities of the referees, will be sent to a Divisional Associate Editor (DAE). The DAE may review the case on the existing record or may seek additional expert opinion. The DAE will present a signed advisory opinion to the editors.
If a DAE has provided a referee report on a paper prior to appeal, another DAE, or the Chairman of the DAEs, must review the paper on appeal. Authors may suggest those DAEs they feel are appropriate (or not appropriate) to conduct the review, but the editors are not bound by such suggestions. If there is no suitable DAE available, the editors may appoint an appropriate scientist to consider a paper under appeal as an ad hoc DAE.

The author of a paper that has been rejected subsequent to a DAE review may request that the case be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief of the American Physical Society. This request should be addressed to the Chairman of the DAEs who will review the file and, if appropriate, forward the entire file to the Editor-in-Chief. Such appeals must be based on the fairness of the review process but must not be a request for another scientific review. The question to be answered in this review is: Did the paper receive a fair hearing? Usually, no further expert consultation is required but, infrequently, additional review may be sought. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief concludes the consideration of the manuscript by the American Physical Society.''

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis:
Author appeals process:....
Thanks.
I think it is unfair that they did not send the thing to reviewers.

I have searched the arXiv, and found a few articles that have similar drift.

So it is not really something that does not make cut altogether.

My prospective is not common, since I see the issues through eyes of a theoretical physicist, knowing the quantum theory by heart.

For now the pseudoscience wins cool

es

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
ES: "I think it is unfair that they did not send the thing to reviewers."

Might be unfair, but can you actually blame them?

ES: "I have searched the arXiv, and found a few articles that have similar drift.So it is not really something that does not make cut altogether."

Finally you did what you should have done long before. I hope you did notice the fundamental difference between the papers you downloaded and yours. So maybe you could learn something from them.

ES: "My prospective is not common, since I see the issues through eyes of a theoretical physicist, knowing the quantum theory by heart."

ES,you're back to your old self again.But don't flatter yourself. What you claim may not be not be common, but it definitely is not singular either.Search arxiv in more detail and convince yourself.Also search spires for citations of the papers you found . So don't pat yourself on the shoulder yet.

ES: "For now the pseudoscience wins"

Well, if I were you I would listen to Ibliss' advice and appeal the decision. You don't have many other chances, so don't waste this one.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by Pasti:
if I were you I would listen to Ibliss' advice and appeal the decision. You don't have many other chances, so don't waste this one.
I will try to do this. Have you noticed that I usually follow a GOOD advice?

e wink s

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
ES: "I will try to do this. Have you noticed that I usually follow a GOOD advice?"

No, I have only noticed that you do what is most convenient to you, more often than not. This is not to be confused with what you wrote about.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Maybe it would be wise to revise the article first. It now looks more like a poster presentation (with the pictures left out).

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
think i need to go with the essence of what pasti says in this thread...generally speaking

however, i'm gonna toss in a definition of science

Merriam-Webster 10th ed

Main Entry: sci?ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

please note that 2a precedes all other definitions...and follows only the earliest and most basic (and most accurate) definition of science

yeah...it's nice to be back :-)

howyadoin' pats

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 28
T
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
T
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 28
Agree with DA MORGAN'S comment : NASA has done a lot of good extraterrestrial science in the almost 50 years of its existence, the PROBLEM is the horribly inefficient ROCKET. It costs between $10,000 to $20,000/pound to put that pound in LEO(Low Earth Orbit)on the shuttle whereas one pound is worth, 100 miles up and moving at 5mps,using the equations :Mv^2/2+mgh<KE+PE> = about 4KWH of electrical energy. If you pay 10cents/KWH that's about 40cents/#, far less than postage at 37cents/oz. Thus back in the Star Wars days<1980's>some of us were working on EMSL(ElectroMagnetic Space Launch)where some kind of cannon shoots hypersonic projectiles directly into LEO, but that approach stepped on a lot of "vested interest" toes at NASA and never received serious funding. To wit, if your propulsion-concept doesn't involve ROCKETS...go somewhere else to get it developed as too many JOBS and CAREERS are wrapped around ROCKETS there for it to get a fair hearing... As to marxism, don't you understand that socialism is something-for-nothing-ism? And where does that come from? INFANCY-your first experience in life=getting free LOVE, FOOD, DIAPER CHANGE...all you have to do is FUSS and mama comes running...and that's all socialists/marxists/communists are : infantile minds that never outgrew infancy...somewhere, somehow there's SOMETHING-FOR-NOTHING out there<where's MAMA!>...like the people who compulsively buy lottery tickets every day, etc.


timer
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like nail.

When you have a crapload of rockets lying around from unused war toys, ....

Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5