+- Earthwaves Earth Sciences Forum (http://www.earthwaves.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Earthwaves (http://www.earthwaves.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: General Science (http://www.earthwaves.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Physics paper rejected, then resubmitted with imaginary co-author (/showthread.php?tid=159)
Physics paper rejected, then resubmitted with imaginary co-author - Island Chris - 10-18-2014
I suppose someone has to check of the story at the link is true. Two physicists had a paper rejected so they added an imaginary co-author whose name is an obscenity. They resubmitted and the paper was accepted. Not spelled out whether it was a different or same journal.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sifter/2014/10/when-is-your-imaginary-co-author
If you have a proposal that is not high enough quality, it will not ever be accepted. But, for proposals that are high quality, it can be a crapshoot whether it will be funded or not.
I used this thread so we won't have to keep looking at the same May post as the last one....
Chris
RE: Physics paper rejected, then resubmitted with imaginary co-author - Skywise - 10-20-2014
(10-18-2014, 05:30 PM)Island Chris Wrote: I suppose someone has to check of the story at the link is true. Two physicists had a paper rejected so they added an imaginary co-author whose name is an obscenity. They resubmitted and the paper was accepted. Not spelled out whether it was a different or same journal.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sifter/2014/10/when-is-your-imaginary-co-author
If you have a proposal that is not high enough quality, it will not ever be accepted. But, for proposals that are high quality, it can be a crapshoot whether it will be funded or not.
I used this thread so we won't have to keep looking at the same May post as the last one....
Chris
It's funny, and it's not. This isn't the first story that points to systemic flaws in science publication. There's even been cases of totally bogus articles making it to publication. Of course, these get caught eventually when someone takes interest and scrutinizes the claims and/or tries to replicate. Makes one wonder if the peer review process needs a peer review of it's own.
Brian