Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Camaban · 08-01-2002, 02:32 PM

wondering if anyone can post what criteria a paper has to pass to pass a peer review (sorry if I made a bad choice of words, but you probably know what I mean)

Dr.GH · 08-01-2002, 04:03 PM

Depends on the journal. What is the backlog, how farout does the editor like to go? How many other journals are there in the field? Are there page fees?

That said, and based on my experience;

First read: Does this article have a topic that fits the journal?

Second read: Is the article competent? This means does the author(s) know, and use the relevent literature? Does the method section suggest that they knew how to do research? Does the analysis section demonstrate adequate sophistication? and Do the conclusions follow from the analysis?

Third read: Is the article well presented? Are there many grammer errors, are the photos, or graphs clear and relevant?

A reviewer's options are to dump the paper, to suggest extencive revision, suggest specific items for improvement, or to recommend publication as is. The editor may accept, ignor or modify these reviewer recommendations.

Starboy · 08-01-2002, 04:50 PM

Dr. GH,

Where is the peer review in the process you describe?

Starboy

Coragyps · 08-01-2002, 05:12 PM

Starboy - the reviewers are other folks who are active in the same field as the submitted paper. It's volunteer work, and loads of fun.

Dr.GH · 08-01-2002, 05:31 PM

Heh, I don't know about fun. Last night I traded 4 article reviews to an editor if he would cover my classes next week when I'm on vacation.

Pure quid pro quo. Plus, he gets $$.

Camaban · 08-01-2002, 05:46 PM

I'll rephrase that (the information I was looking for was probably there, but I was too blonde to interpret)

ok, what are the main criterions that most Creationist "research" papers fail on?

Camaban · 08-01-2002, 05:47 PM

apologies BTW.

I've just got a slight obsession with having anything like that put into black and white (to make sure I understand)

tgamble · 08-01-2002, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Camaban:
<strong>ok, what are the main criterions that most Creationist "research" papers fail on?</strong>

All of em.

lpetrich · 08-01-2002, 07:04 PM

Creationists simply do not submit many creationist papers to mainstream journals. At least no leading creationist has whined about those awful closed-minded evilutionists who have rejected their wonderful work.

I wonder if any leading creationist has ever been challenged about that; I don't know of any.

Camaban · 08-01-2002, 08:02 PM

Quote:

All of em.

well, a few of the main points then please.

08-01-2002, 02:32 PM	#1
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	Rules for passing a peer review wondering if anyone can post what criteria a paper has to pass to pass a peer review (sorry if I made a bad choice of words, but you probably know what I mean)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2002, 04:03 PM	#2
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Depends on the journal. What is the backlog, how farout does the editor like to go? How many other journals are there in the field? Are there page fees? That said, and based on my experience; First read: Does this article have a topic that fits the journal? Second read: Is the article competent? This means does the author(s) know, and use the relevent literature? Does the method section suggest that they knew how to do research? Does the analysis section demonstrate adequate sophistication? and Do the conclusions follow from the analysis? Third read: Is the article well presented? Are there many grammer errors, are the photos, or graphs clear and relevant? A reviewer's options are to dump the paper, to suggest extencive revision, suggest specific items for improvement, or to recommend publication as is. The editor may accept, ignor or modify these reviewer recommendations.

08-01-2002, 04:50 PM	#3
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Dr. GH, Where is the peer review in the process you describe? Starboy

08-01-2002, 05:12 PM	#4
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Starboy - the reviewers are other folks who are active in the same field as the submitted paper. It's volunteer work, and loads of fun.

08-01-2002, 05:31 PM	#5
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Heh, I don't know about fun. Last night I traded 4 article reviews to an editor if he would cover my classes next week when I'm on vacation. Pure quid pro quo. Plus, he gets $$.

08-01-2002, 05:46 PM	#6
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	I'll rephrase that (the information I was looking for was probably there, but I was too blonde to interpret) ok, what are the main criterions that most Creationist "research" papers fail on?

08-01-2002, 05:47 PM	#7
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	apologies BTW. I've just got a slight obsession with having anything like that put into black and white (to make sure I understand)

08-01-2002, 07:04 PM	#9
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Creationists simply do not submit many creationist papers to mainstream journals. At least no leading creationist has whined about those awful closed-minded evilutionists who have rejected their wonderful work. I wonder if any leading creationist has ever been challenged about that; I don't know of any.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.