Re: Journals

From: Saibal Mitra <>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:51:51 +0200

Try Foundation of Physics Letters!


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 Standish            Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                     Fax   9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
> Australia  
> Room 2075, Red Centre
>             International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu Jul 05 2001 - 03:00:38 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST