Einstein and peer review. (I've never been published in Nature, but...)

[sylas]

The journal was "De Novo", and the article in question was "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies".

Thank you! This is a great addition to my collection of journal oddities.

Cheers -- sylas

[Jorge]

That's a good question. There is something in us that enjoys seeing the Black Knight continuing to declare victory while he lay bleeding with no arms and no legs I guess. I mean the comedy skit gets laughs anytime its shown. I guess when you see it in real life, it just keeps you coming back for more ...

Not sure if that's a particularly good commentary on those of use that keep prodding and poking, but it is what it is I guess.

Jim

Take a triple-helping of my last post, O-Mudd.

Jorge

[Jorge]

First, I really don't understand why anyone here bothers to respond to Jorge on anything.

Cheers -- sylas

Now THAT'S interesting! I have exactly the same thoughts about most people here, including you.

You think that, maybe, there's a psychic connection?

Yeah, I kind'a knew that you'd be a bit upset about someone pointing out the
'dark side' of your sacred PR process. But, hey, it is what it is - too bad for you.

You may now return to the faithful audience that swallows your swill with
nary a critical thought. Eat, drink and be merry, fools, for tomorrow you die.

Oh, and by all means, do NOT respond to this 'big, bad post'.

Jorge

[rwatts]

That's a good question.

Jim

I call it "talking to fence-posts".

[rwatts]

Don't worry about Jorge.

I worry about Jorge. Don't you?

[Ucchedavāda]

For those who are curious, but also not interested in paying $30 to read the paper, there appears to be a (less flashy) version available here:
http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/view-dna-study/

[Omega Red]

The journal was "De Novo", and the article in question was "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies".

A single paper in a single issue!?! I wonder if they got permission from all their co-authors to "publish"?

[Ucchedavāda]

IIRC someone once started up their own "peer reviewed journal" solely to publish their "paper" about supposed Bigfoot DNA that read like a Middle School term paper written by a C- student.

The journal was "De Novo", and the article in question was "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies".

[rogue06]

Setting up your own journal is not new to mainstream science either. I remember that several journals (e.g. Journal of New Energy) were established to report continuing research in cold fusion given that publishing in mainstream journals had become increasingly difficult, though not impossible.

IIRC someone once started up their own "peer reviewed journal" solely to publish their "paper" about supposed Bigfoot DNA that read like a Middle School term paper written by a C- student.

[Omega Red]

Really.

Scientists have indeed been challenging conventional evolutionary theory for quite some time and not only has their work passed peer review, in many cases it has been accepted in whole or in part. Indeed, classical evolutionary theory has been changed over the years as new and more accurate information continues to come in.

• Like when Conrad Waddington proposed developmental evolution (evo-devo) in 1942

• Like when Willi Hennig proposed phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) in 1950

• Like when Motoo Kimura proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift) in 1968

• Like when Lynn Margulis proposed Endosymbiotic theory in 1970

• Like when Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1973

• Like when Carl Woese proposed horizontal gene transfer in 1977

These are all (and not the only) examples of controversial theories when they came out as they accounted for observed biological changes that did not correspond to the expectations of the neo-Darwinian models derived from the New Synthesis (which itself over-turned pure Darwinian thought and theory and was developed in the mid 1930s through the mid 40s). That is the way science is supposed to work.

You know he is going to whinge because he said “nowadays”, submit to “Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley or MIT” and challenge “Evolutionary dogma” (please note the capitalization of “E” and the “dogma” label freely attached to it because it suits his purposes).

There are of course more examples that fly in the face of the claim “that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”:

• W.J. Ouweneel, “Developmental genetics of homoeosis”, Adv Genet., 18, 179-248 (1976) – fruit fly developmental anomalies
• S. Scherer, "Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport", J. Theor. Bio., 104, 289-299 (1983) - evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport an unsolved problem in theoretical biology
• G.R. Lambert, "Enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer", J Theor Biol., 7, 387-403 (1984) – DNA processes should have high error rates without designer editing enzymes
• R.V. Gentry, "Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective", Science, 184, 62-66 (1974) - unclear formation mechanisms of halos in currently accepted cosmological models of Earth formation

Source: https://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/arj/instructions-to-authors.pdf

VIII. Paper Review Process
Upon the reception of a paper the editor-in-chief will follow the procedures below:
A. Receive and acknowledge to the author the paper’s receipt.
B. Review the paper for possible inclusion into the ARJ review process.

The following criteria will be used in judging papers:

• 1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
• 2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
• 3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
• 4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
• 5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
• 6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?

…
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.

© Copyright Original Source

So some YECs moan about being censored and not being considered for mainstream journals, when quite clearly they have been able to publish in mainstream journals before, and yet they set up their own journal where they censor out non-conformist views and will never publish non-YEC work. Smacks of hypocrisy.

Setting up your own journal is not new to mainstream science either. I remember that several journals (e.g. Journal of New Energy) were established to report continuing research in cold fusion given that publishing in mainstream journals had become increasingly difficult, though not impossible.

[lilpixieofterror]

Don't worry about Jorge. Congrads on it. Hopefully you'll make it into the magazine someday too (if you do, let me know so I can get the issue to read the story).

[Omega Red]

When our papers are rejected at the review stage, it's almost always because the journal editor decided it was interesting enough or appropriate for that journal. (Maybe we should write more flawed papers?)

[sylas]

There's a movement afoot in biology to move toward preprints, prepublication peer review and some form of post-publication PR. The PR system is seeming increasingly fragile. At some point online technology will probably change the practice in substantial ways, but exactly how that's going to work out remains to be seen.

I'm interested in seeing how an "open review" system might work. The preprint, and the comments from reviews, are made available together on a website, and there is a subsequent exchange much like a series of forum posts in which differences are nutted out. This has been implemented by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union).

The interactive discussions are usually pretty brief, and the comments are in the form of pdf documents. You can easily find exchanges relating to papers under review from the home page. The interactive discussions are typically open for a limited time of some months. Here's an example exchange (link may not work beyond July 8): interactive review discussion.

You can always get your publications out in any case, especially now we have the internet [...] and if it actually is significant and any good, it will get picked up and passed around. If it still doesn't have any impact, then it would not have had any impact as a journal article either. We are well used to journals that publish lousy papers; getting published doesn't correspond to having an impact on the field.

I really doubt this. It's quite possible for a paper get stuck in review or rejected, and never have any impact because other papers end up covering the same territory (sometimes not as well).

True enough... I was thinking more of the case of people who are claiming that some specific idea doesn't get out because of bias in review; rather than of an individual paper which never gets out while similar material does get through. My claim is basically that one can still publish other than in reviewed science journals; and further that IF the publication actually does make a good case for some new idea then it will get picked up and passed around.

I had in mind the general concern often expressed that valid criticisms of some generally accepted scientific idea is ignored because it fails to get past review. The usual suspects here -- evolution, climate, cosmology, relativity, medicine and vaccination esp, etc, etc.

Rejection at the peer review stage is nearly always due to explicitly identified flaws in a paper.

Not in my experience. When our papers are rejected at the review stage, it's almost always because the journal editor decided it was interesting enough or appropriate for that journal. (Maybe we should write more flawed papers?)

Yes; that is another common reason for rejection. I will quibble that it is to your credit that you get this response; and I continue to suspect that in general, the most common reason for rejections are specific flaws in the paper. You probably have a lot less flaws that most people attempting to get published.

Have you looked at the Heng Li/BWA imbroglio? Here is part of the story.

Thanks for the link; looks potentially interesting.

Cheers -- sylas

[rogue06]

The usual reason:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]843[/ATTACH]

[klaus54]

WOW!!! ...

Yeah ... sure ... whatever.

Jorge

Simple question. This is your answer?

K54