Try Foundation of Physics Letters! Saibal
Russel wrote: > As many of you are aware, I have been attempting to publish "Why > Occams Razor" for about 18 months now. In September, it will have been > two years since I wrote the paper. I first tried Phys Rev - which > rejected it on editorial policy grounds ("no fundamentals of QM > please") then Annals of Physics (who published Tegmark's > paper). Annals of Physics found one referee, who completely failed to > understand the main point of the paper, and was not prepared to > discuss it. The ended up rejecting the paper because they couldn't > find any other referees to handle it. In February of this year, I have > submitted it to Journal of Theoretics, for two reasons: > > i) It is an Internet Journal, with open access to its > archives. Philosophically, I am in favour of free open access to > journals since > > a) scientists do not charge to write articles, > b) scientists do not charge to referee articles, > c) scientific editors often do not charge to edit journals, or the > editors are subsidised by a society or institution > d) the Internet reduces distributions charges to practically zero. > > I have been a long supporter of the journal Complexity International > for these reasons, although its subject matter is not so relevant for > this group. It perhaps does not have the cachet of other journals, but > I believe so strongly in this principle, I would like to raise its > quality by contributing good articles. > > ii) J. Theoretics editorial policy is summed up by: > > "Unlike most journals were the theory has to be validated or > invalidated by the article, the Journal of Theoretics must use a > different process due to the nature of the subject matter. Because a > theory by definition is a hypothesis not yet proven, we must show that > the premises, logic, or use of language of the article submitted > contains a significant error in order for a rejection to occur." > > ie something obviously wrong gets rejected, but otherwise ideas of > merit get to see the light of day. > > > However, it seems that Internet journals do not have a speedier > refereeing process. It galls me a bit, since I've always turned around > papers I've refereed within a couple of weeks, that other referees may > not be taking the refereeing process seriously. > > I have a question in light of this for the group. Come September (2nd > anniversary of Why Occams Razor), if I've had no joy with > J. Theoretics, I would like to try another journal. All I ask is that > my paper be properly peer reveiwed. Does anyone have any suggestions? > What about Teorie e Modelli? > > Cheers > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Dr. Russell Standish Director > High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (") > Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > >