3 ms·
It sounds like your review process went very well. Those hardened anti-novelists have probably rejected piles of genuinely crank material. They're needed to kee
by Hondor 10y ago
It sounds like your review process went very well. Those hardened anti-novelists have probably rejected piles of genuinely crank material. They're needed to keep the literature free of true rubbish. Of course they're not perfect so sometimes rubbish gets through and sometimes good work gets blocked, but if the researcher really believes in their work, they'll go to extra lengths to break through, as you did.
Maybe the world would be a slightly better place if your overly skeptical reviewer had reviewed this http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm
- jrapdx3 10y agoKeeping "rubbish" out of the journals is a reasonable goal, though judging by what's in the journals I read, you're right rubbish still leaks through from time to time. I believe I was the beneficiary of good fortune in overcoming the barriers, but luck is a very thin and unreliable conduit to success. Indeed I know authors not as lucky, and their good work was blocked. Fields of research are often highly specialized and a small community of interest can become insulated from voices outside that world. It's my impression that was the basis of the difficulty I encountered. Not that I have a solution to the problem, but I've wondered how many worthwhile novel contributions by "outsiders" not affiliated with a field's main research centers are being lost under current peer review regimes.