On 1 January 2014 02:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> > as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and >> Membranes) I >> > know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review >> approval >> > on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific fabric >> of >> > college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space for several new >> ideas >> > that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide and debate'). >> >> It's interesting to read this. I agree that the current model of >> peer-review leads to too much conservatism, and "me-too" papers are >> much more likely to get approved than the ones with novel ideas. On >> the other hand, there's only so much time to keep up with the >> literature, so some amount of filtering is required. >> > > I see 2 problems: everybody wants to publish + the peer groups that > control certain domains and their journals are too often specialized > cowards, that have to make bread, and fear "losing face" for publishing > something crackpot style, like those nonsense articles that get through the > peer process into publication from time to time. > Like Alan Sokal - my hero!!! > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
