Re: Journals
Hi Russell, > [...] >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? Well, I have published (and it appeared very recently btw) my "Computation, Consciousness and the Quantum" in Teorie e Modelli, after some Italians hears my talk at Dubrovnik. Also because they were doing a special issue of Teorie e Modelli on Quantum and Consciousness. But I am not sure about the general thema of the journal. If you agree I can ask Vincenzo Fano and give you (or him) his mail address (or the address of your paper). Have you try the "Journal of Philosophy", or ... (The journals which come to my mind turn around philosophical logics, I will think about it ...). Perhaps you should try to transform your paper in the form of a response to a similar paper you could find in the literature. (This means spending lot of times in libraries ..., but I found Maudlin's paper in this way). The problem with "our domain" is that it is very inter or trans disciplinary. And a lot of "specialists" doesn't like that too much. Our epoch is not so easy for those who attempts clarity, rigor, and open-mindeness, in fundamental matters. There is still a lot of energy wasted by both scientist and philosophers for ignoring each other. About publication, I must perhaps confess that, a long time ago, between publish or perish, I have chosen perish!... Until now I have never submit a paper to a journal. I publish only when people, after hearing oral talk of mine, ask me to send a paper. Talking about publishing, I guess it is about time I try myself to publish in some "serious" International Journal. The paper by Rawling and Selesnick in the J. of the ACM 2000 gives me perhaps the opportunity to send a technical paper on my "arithmetical quantization". I will try to write it this summer holliday(°). ... So I hope this one will not be driven into company of my ten thousand unfinished papers ... :-) I certainly wish better fortune for your Occam paper! Bruno (°) My idea was to write such thesis-paper after the presentation of my thesis, but I got a prize which consists in the promise of publishing the thesis. But being to technical I wrote a third "book" in french! The book is written but I am not glad with it. That's the problem: I am my worst referee.
Re: Journals
Correction: the journal is called Foundations of Physics.
Re: Journals
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 StandishDirector
> 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
> --
--
>
>
Re: Journals
Dear Russell: I agree with the objective but it seems to me we first need to provide such forums with things like a rough map of the current acronym landscape and a companion map of the suspected relative merit of current concepts both of which must come from within the smaller group. Both maps are still dynamic as would be the FAQ that reflected them - thus as you say a journal of sorts. I would not, in that context, consider the FAQ as unrefereed since both kinds of forum are - for pragmatic reasons - rather self referential and the FAQ would not have unlimited access. In essence a well structured and reviewed FAQ for this list might help the entry of papers into the "mainstream". Hal At 7/5/01, you wrote: >No - it has a different function. The FAQ is more like a review >article of the discussion on the email list, which in turn is like an >unrefereed journal. We do need to get articles into the refereed >scientific mainstream where we can. These form more solid islands >within the "swampy peninsula" of speculation you so aptly call >it. These more solid bulding blocks act as "seeds" and "anchors", from >which our comprehension will grow. > >This list has already refereed the "Why Occam's Razor paper", and it >is a better paper for all the constructive criticism it received. > > Cheers
Re: Journals
No - it has a different function. The FAQ is more like a review
article of the discussion on the email list, which in turn is like an
unrefereed journal. We do need to get articles into the refereed
scientific mainstream where we can. These form more solid islands
within the "swampy peninsula" of speculation you so aptly call
it. These more solid bulding blocks act as "seeds" and "anchors", from
which our comprehension will grow.
This list has already refereed the "Why Occam's Razor paper", and it
is a better paper for all the constructive criticism it received.
Cheers
Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
> Dear Russell:
>
> One reason I started to put together a FAQ for this list with the
> organizational pattern I selected is that we seem to be pushing a somewhat
> swampy, narrow, shifting peninsula of new comprehension into the sea of the
> unknown. This list itself may consist of a large fraction of those who are
> interested in our mutual "hobby" enough to be able to act as referees.
>
> The FAQ itself as I saw it would/could be more "journal" than otherwise.
>
> Unfortunately my life has changed to the extent that I will have little
> time to participate in the discussion and work on the FAQ outside the
> Northern Hemisphere winter.
>
> Hal
>
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 Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: Journals
Dear Russell:
One reason I started to put together a FAQ for this list with the
organizational pattern I selected is that we seem to be pushing a somewhat
swampy, narrow, shifting peninsula of new comprehension into the sea of the
unknown. This list itself may consist of a large fraction of those who are
interested in our mutual "hobby" enough to be able to act as referees.
The FAQ itself as I saw it would/could be more "journal" than otherwise.
Unfortunately my life has changed to the extent that I will have little
time to participate in the discussion and work on the FAQ outside the
Northern Hemisphere winter.
Hal
At 7/5/01, you 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 StandishDirector
>High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
>UNSW SYDNEY 2052Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
>Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
>
