On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> Lack of importance should not be a reason.
That is ridiculous. Science and Nature cannot publish every manuscript they
receive and they shouldn't even if they could because that would defeat the
entire point of having journals. There is only room for a few articles so
the editors pick the ones out of the pile they receive every month that
they judge to be the most important. I don't see what else they could do.
> > What is unimportant to one person, may be important to another.
If you disagree with what the editors of Science or Nature judge to be
important then read different journals, although I must say that
historically their judgement has proven to be remarkably good; not perfect
but damn good.
> The thing about editorial rejection is that it is based on an editor
> deciding that the paper is not worth looking into.
Exactly, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.
> If I was the editor of the (fictitious) Journal of Bees, then I would be
> quite right in rejecting a paper about North Atlantic Salmon as being out
> of scope.
Would you publish experimental results from somebody that you know has
performed sloppy experiments in the past showing that bees don't make honey
and never have?
Would you publish results from a meticulously conducted experiment that
scrupulously followed the scientific method proving that if bees are dunked
into a bucket of blue lead based paint they take on a blueish hue and die?
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.