Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

peer review

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Oh No

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 3:49:32 PM12/1/09
to
Not for stony faced princesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

Gordon Stangler

unread,
Dec 3, 2009, 1:07:26 AM12/3/09
to

We found that really offensive.

Sincerely,
Editors for Scientific American.

(j/k)

Chalky

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 12:05:06 PM12/11/09
to

Laugh? I nearly cried!

This is the funniest thread I have read in a long time (or, perhaps,
ever)

Bob_for_short

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 6:25:34 PM12/20/09
to
On Dec 3, 7:07�am, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We found that really offensive.
>
> Sincerely,
> Editors for Scientific American.
>

Yes, it is so if one assumes that the authors are wrong and the
referee is right.

On the other hand I had a funny experience with a European physical
journal where two (!) referees were incompetent - they did not
understand the atomic form-factors. An older colleague of mine advised
me sending my paper to one of American journals just because of better
competence and fairness of their referees. So it my serve as a
flattery to the American peer review system.

Vladimir.

0 new messages