07-06-10, 10:24 PM #101
Ok, I'll comment on the OP now.
Originally Posted by QuarkHead
A is asked to review a submission by B because he is known to work in the same area. Now A and B might regularly go for a beer together, but nonetheless they are still scientific rivals. So the reviewer, A, will do his very best to ensure that B's submission is rejected. Anonymity guarantees that B never knows that his friend shafted him. Moreover, all journals like to keep their status high, and so encourage rejection on even the flimsiest grounds.
I happen to be a naturally skittish person who likes to know what they're getting into before going balls out. After a year of membership I'm beginning to think that SciForums may be the wrong place to start this quest. Most comments (as misguided as they are) seem to be met with a catch 22. The replies suggest that one shouldn't comment on X until after they know the foundation from which X is constructed yet, if the original poster knew what the foundation was then they wouldn't need to question it in the first place. Cranks will always be cranks but so much for collaboration.
The magic and wonder has turned into slight of hand and disillusionment.
By Xinwei Huang in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 04-15-10, 02:31 AMReplies: 3
By TURBO2GQ in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 11-25-09, 10:56 PMReplies: 2
By TURBO2GQ in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 11-25-09, 10:10 PMReplies: 1
By Acitnoids in forum Site FeedbackLast Post: 06-30-09, 05:45 PMReplies: 13
By geistkiesel in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 05-03-09, 11:51 PMReplies: 14