Ben, thanks for posting this link:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/#more-1275
Based on reading his item #2 I am actually changing my approach in my attempt to get my paper published.
But I think it's worth a critical examination of what Carrol's demanding. It points to what I think is a fundamental closed-mindedness on the part of professional physicists and the physics establishment. Seems to me he is taking a very childish position, at least if it's extrapolated from being his personal demands for reviewing something somebody sends him out of the blue to what does it take to actually get a physics journal to review your paper.
The way I see it, Carrol is basically saying, in order for the physics establishment to review your discovery, the non-professional physicist has to not only make a discovery (and write the paper), he's got to interpret the implications of that discovery and explain why it's important. This is not a fair demand, seems to me. There will be discoveries for which the implications are not so obvious. The amateur physicist is not necessarily equipped to understand the implications. That may be why he wants to publish his paper. That is, so that professional physicists can see it and figure out what the implications of it are. This might take a long time so getting it into print and out there is maybe the only way to do it.
So, the attitude I get is, professional physics says, "Even though it is our job to review physics ideas and determine their correctness and novelty, we won't do it unless you sugar-coat it for us."
When I submitted my paper to Physical Review (E), I expected that, no matter what, the paper would get reviewed, and I would find out:
a) Is my conclusion correct or incorrect?
b) Is it previously known?
Seems to me these are the only relevant criteria. Other than that it should be just a question of what journal should publish it.
If you remember as I have mentioned probably several times, my paper was rejected without review. In effect, the editor said, "We don't publish that kind of paper in our journal, that might have totally new stuff in it." But of course they have published a number of papers along these lines in the past, which is why I sent it to PRE. Hans C Von Baeyer's for one, and probably 4 or 5 by Jayme De Luca, and others I could name.
The real reason they don't want to publish an amateur paper seems to me is that your typical amateur physics paper is going to be rather naively written. The professional physicists can spot this in an instant. The journal editor thinks it will reflect poorly on himself and his journal. Why take a chance when he can easily simply blow the amateur off?
I want to add, it would also be fair for them to say, ok this is correct and not previously known, but it's not significant because of such and such. But there should be restrictions on that such and such. That is, it isn't fair to say, it's not significant because if it were true it would mean certain things we believe very strongly must be wrong and we're not prepared to contemplate that. In that case there's an obligation to either find the flaw or publish, or even forward to an appropriate venue.
Imagine everybody believes the world is flat but you've just discovered that the evidence points to the world being round. So you write your paper up and submit it. Also, you don't bother to wrote a hokey introduction imagining what are the implications and why is it important that the world is round not flat. That's not science after all. You just want to get your work published and if it turns out a lot of people are upset because they've got a vested interest in the world being flat that's not your problem. But instead of getting a response of either, "your analysis is flawed here" or "your paper is accepted", you are told, "we don't publish new ideas in our journal". Well that's about how I feel.
But, I'm not letting it get to me. I'm continuing to work and I'm making good progress and I'm rewriting two papers hopefully less naively and if I must sugar coat them for the babies I will. Next time I will send it to a journal that I hope will be more circumspect.
BTW, did I mention that H.C. von Baeyer did read my paper and comment on it for me? I c an post what he said. He didn't find any errors, but he said, basically, it is out of style.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/#more-1275
Based on reading his item #2 I am actually changing my approach in my attempt to get my paper published.
But I think it's worth a critical examination of what Carrol's demanding. It points to what I think is a fundamental closed-mindedness on the part of professional physicists and the physics establishment. Seems to me he is taking a very childish position, at least if it's extrapolated from being his personal demands for reviewing something somebody sends him out of the blue to what does it take to actually get a physics journal to review your paper.
The way I see it, Carrol is basically saying, in order for the physics establishment to review your discovery, the non-professional physicist has to not only make a discovery (and write the paper), he's got to interpret the implications of that discovery and explain why it's important. This is not a fair demand, seems to me. There will be discoveries for which the implications are not so obvious. The amateur physicist is not necessarily equipped to understand the implications. That may be why he wants to publish his paper. That is, so that professional physicists can see it and figure out what the implications of it are. This might take a long time so getting it into print and out there is maybe the only way to do it.
So, the attitude I get is, professional physics says, "Even though it is our job to review physics ideas and determine their correctness and novelty, we won't do it unless you sugar-coat it for us."
When I submitted my paper to Physical Review (E), I expected that, no matter what, the paper would get reviewed, and I would find out:
a) Is my conclusion correct or incorrect?
b) Is it previously known?
Seems to me these are the only relevant criteria. Other than that it should be just a question of what journal should publish it.
If you remember as I have mentioned probably several times, my paper was rejected without review. In effect, the editor said, "We don't publish that kind of paper in our journal, that might have totally new stuff in it." But of course they have published a number of papers along these lines in the past, which is why I sent it to PRE. Hans C Von Baeyer's for one, and probably 4 or 5 by Jayme De Luca, and others I could name.
The real reason they don't want to publish an amateur paper seems to me is that your typical amateur physics paper is going to be rather naively written. The professional physicists can spot this in an instant. The journal editor thinks it will reflect poorly on himself and his journal. Why take a chance when he can easily simply blow the amateur off?
I want to add, it would also be fair for them to say, ok this is correct and not previously known, but it's not significant because of such and such. But there should be restrictions on that such and such. That is, it isn't fair to say, it's not significant because if it were true it would mean certain things we believe very strongly must be wrong and we're not prepared to contemplate that. In that case there's an obligation to either find the flaw or publish, or even forward to an appropriate venue.
Imagine everybody believes the world is flat but you've just discovered that the evidence points to the world being round. So you write your paper up and submit it. Also, you don't bother to wrote a hokey introduction imagining what are the implications and why is it important that the world is round not flat. That's not science after all. You just want to get your work published and if it turns out a lot of people are upset because they've got a vested interest in the world being flat that's not your problem. But instead of getting a response of either, "your analysis is flawed here" or "your paper is accepted", you are told, "we don't publish new ideas in our journal". Well that's about how I feel.
But, I'm not letting it get to me. I'm continuing to work and I'm making good progress and I'm rewriting two papers hopefully less naively and if I must sugar coat them for the babies I will. Next time I will send it to a journal that I hope will be more circumspect.
BTW, did I mention that H.C. von Baeyer did read my paper and comment on it for me? I c an post what he said. He didn't find any errors, but he said, basically, it is out of style.