Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    20 Aug '09 18:29 / 1 edit
    By Professor Rick Trebino:

    [i]The essence of science is reasoned debate. So, if you disagree with
    something reported in a scientific paper, you can write a “Comment”
    on it.
    Yet you don’t see many Comments.
    Some believe that this is because journal editors are reluctant to
    publish Comments because Comments reveal their mistakes—papers
    they shouldn’t have allowed to be published in the first place. Indeed,
    scientists often complain that it can be very difficult to publish one.
    Fortunately, in this article, I’ll share with you my recent experience
    publishing a Comment, so you can, too. There are just a few simple
    steps:

    1. Read a paper that has a mistake in it.
    2. Write and submit a Comment, politely correcting the mistake.
    3. Enjoy your Comment in print along with the authors’ equally
    polite Reply, basking in the joy of having participated in the
    glorious scientific process and of the new friends you’ve made—
    the authors whose research you’ve greatly assisted.


    Ha ha! You didn’t really believe that, did you? Here’s the actual
    sequence of events:


    1. Read a paper in the most prestigious journal in your field that
    “proves” that your entire life’s work is wrong.

    2. Realize that the paper is completely wrong, its conclusions
    based entirely on several misconceptions. It also claims that an
    approach you showed to be fundamentally impossible is
    preferable to one that you pioneered in its place and that
    actually works. And among other errors, it also includes a
    serious miscalculation—a number wrong by a factor of about
    1000—a fact that’s obvious from a glance at the paper’s main
    figure.

    3. Decide to write a Comment to correct these mistakes—the
    option conveniently provided by scientific journals precisely for
    such situations.

    4. Prepare for the writing of your Comment by searching the
    journal for all previous Comments, finding about a dozen in the
    last decade.

    5. Note that almost all such Comments were two to three pages
    long, like the other articles in the journal.

    6. Prepare further by writing to the authors of the incorrect paper,
    politely asking for important details they neglected to provide in
    their paper.

    7. Receive no response.

    8. Persuade a graduate student to write to the authors of the
    incorrect paper, politely asking for the important details they
    neglected to provide in their paper.

    9. Receive no response.

    10. Persuade a colleague to write to the authors of the incorrect
    paper, politely asking for the important details they neglected to
    provide in their paper.

    11. Receive no response.

    12. Persuade your colleague to ask a friend to write to the authors
    of the incorrect paper, politely asking for the important details
    they neglected to provide in their paper.

    13. Receive no response.

    14. Ask the graduate student to estimate these parameters herself,
    and observe that she does a very good job of it, reproducing
    their plots very accurately and confirming that the authors were
    wrong by a factor of about 1000 and that their conclusions were
    also wrong.

    15. Write a Comment, politely explaining the authors’
    misconceptions and correcting their miscalculation, including
    illustrative figures, important equations, and simple
    explanations of perhaps how they got it wrong, so others won’t
    make the same mistake in the future.

    16. Submit your Comment.

    17. Wait two weeks.

    18. Receive a response from the journal, stating that your Comment
    is 2.39 pages long. Unfortunately, Comments can be no more
    than 1.00 pages long, so your Comment cannot be considered
    until it is shortened to less than 1.00 pages long.

    19. Take a look at the journal again, and note that the title, author
    list, author addresses, submission date, database codes,
    abstract, references, and other administrative text occupy about
    half a page, leaving only half a page for actual commenting in
    your Comment.

    20. Remove all unnecessary quantities such as figures, equations,
    and explanations. Also remove mention of some of the authors’
    numerous errors, for which there is now no room in your
    Comment; the archival literature would simply have to be
    content with a few uncorrected falsehoods. Note that your
    Comment is now 0.90 pages.

    21. Resubmit your Comment.

    22. Wait two weeks.

    23. Receive a response from the journal, stating that your Comment
    is 1.07 pages long. Unfortunately, Comments can be no more
    than 1.00 pages long, so your Comment cannot be considered
    until it is shortened to less than 1.00 pages long.

    24. Write to the journal that, in view of the fact that your Comment
    is only ever so slightly long, and that it takes quite a while to
    resubmit it on the journal’s confusing and dysfunctional web site,
    perhaps it could be sent out for review as is and shortened
    slightly to 1.00 pages later.

    25. Wait a week.

    26. Receive a response from the journal, stating that your Comment
    is 1.07 pages long. Unfortunately, Comments can be no more
    than 1.00 pages long, so your Comment cannot be considered
    until it is shortened to less than 1.00 pages long.

    27. Shorten your Comment to 0.80 pages, removing such frivolous
    linguistic luxuries as adjectives and adverbs.

    28. Resubmit your Comment.

    29. Wait three months, during which time, answer questions from
    numerous competitors regarding the fraudulence of your life’s
    work, why you perpetrated such a scam on the scientific
    community, and how you got away with it for so long.

    30. Read the latest issue of the journal, particularly enjoying an
    especially detailed, figure-filled, equation-laden, and
    explanation-rich three-page Comment.

    31. Receive the reviews of your Comment.

    32. Notice that Reviewer #3 likes your Comment, considers it
    important that the incorrect paper’s errors be corrected and
    recommends publication of your Comment as is.

    33. Notice that Reviewer #2 hates your Comment for taking issue
    with such a phenomenal paper, which finally debunked such
    terrible work as yours, and insists that your Comment not be
    published under any circumstances.

    34. Notice that Reviewer #1 doesn’t like it either, but considers that
    its short length may have prevented him from understanding it.

    35. Also receive the topical editor’s response, pointing out that no
    decision can be made at this time, but also kindly suggesting
    that you consider expanding your Comment to three pages and
    resubmitting it along with your responses to the reviews.

    36. Expand your Comment back to three pages, replacing adjectives,
    adverbs, figures, equations, explanations, and corrections of
    author errors you had had to remove earlier to meet the 1.00-
    page limit. And, in an attempt to enlighten Reviewers #1 and
    #2, include a separate extended response to their reviews.

    37. Resubmit your Comment.

    38. Wait three months, during which time, receive condolences from
    numerous colleagues regarding the fraudulence of your life’s
    work and how sorry they are about it having been debunked.

    39. Fail to enjoy your colleagues’ stories of other deluded scientists
    in history whose work was also eventually debunked, and try to
    explain that, in fact, you feel that you don’t actually have that
    much in common with alchemists, astrologers, creationists, and
    flat-earthers.

    40. Read the latest issue of the journal, which includes another
    detailed three-page Comment, almost bursting with colorful and
    superfluous adjectives and adverbs, some as many as twenty
    letters long.

    41. Receive the second set of reviews of your Comment.

    42. Notice that Reviewer #3 continues to like your Comment and
    continues to recommend its publication.

    43. Notice that Reviewer #2 continues to hate it for taking issue
    with such a phenomenal paper, which finally debunked such
    terrible work as yours, and again insists that your worthless
    Comment not be published.

    44. Note further that Reviewer #2 now adds that your Comment
    should under no circumstances be published until you obtain the
    important details from the authors that you confessed in your
    response to the reviewers you were not able to obtain and are
    not ever going to.

    45. Realize that Reviewer #2’s final criticism inevitably dooms your
    Comment to oblivion until such time as the authors provide you
    with the important details, your best estimate for which is never.

    46. Notice, however, that Reviewer #1 now sees your point and
    now strongly recommends publication of your Comment. He
    also strongly recommends that your Comment remain three
    pages long, so that other readers can actually understand what
    it is that you’re saying.

    47. And, in an absolutely stunning turn of events, note also that
    Reviewer #1 writes further that he has also somehow secretly
    obtained from the authors the important details they neglected
    to provide in their paper and refused to send to you. Even
    better, using them, he has actually checked the relevant
    calculation. And he finds that the authors are wrong, and you
    are correct.

    48. Realize that it is now no longer necessary to respond to the
    impossible criticism of Reviewer #2, as Reviewer #1 has kindly
    done this for you.

    49. Add a sentence to your Comment thanking Reviewer #1 for his
    heroic efforts in obtaining the authors’ important details and for
    confirming your calculations.
  2. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    20 Aug '09 18:30 / 2 edits
    50. Receive the editor’s decision that your Comment could perhaps
    now be published. Unfortunately, Comments can be no more
    than 1.00 pages long, so your Comment cannot be considered
    further until it is shortened to less than 1.00 pages long.

    51. Point out to the editor that most Comments in his journal are
    two to three pages long. Furthermore, it was the editor himself
    who suggested lengthening it to three pages in the first place.
    And Reviewer #1 strongly recommended leaving it that long.

    52. Wait a month for a response, during which time, answer
    questions from numerous friends regarding the fraudulence of
    your life’s work and asking what new field you’re considering
    and reminding you of how lucky you are to still have your job.

    53. Turn down a friend’s job offer in his brother-in-law’s septic-tank
    pumping company.

    54. Obtain the latest issue of the journal and enjoy reading yet
    another nice lengthy Comment, this one swimming in such
    extravagant grammatical constructions as dependent clauses.

    55. Receive the editor’s response, apologizing that, unfortunately,
    Comments can be no more than 1.00 pages long, so your
    Comment cannot be considered further until it is shortened to
    less than 1.00 pages long.

    56. Download pdf files of all Comments published in the journal in
    the past decade, most of which were three pages long. Send
    them to the editor, his boss, and his boss’s boss.

    57. Receive the editor’s response, apologizing that, unfortunately,
    Comments can be no more than 1.00 pages long, so your
    Comment cannot be considered further until it is shortened to
    less than 1.00 pages long.

    58. Shorten your Comment to 0.80 pages, again removing
    gratuitous length-increasing luxuries such as figures, equations,
    explanations, adjectives, and adverbs. Also again remove your
    corrections of some of the authors’ errors.

    59. Also, replace extravagant words containing wastefully wide
    letters, such as “m” and “w”, with efficient, space-saving words
    containing efficient, lean letters, like “i”, “j”, “t”, and “l”. So
    what if “global warming” has become “global tilting.”

    60. Resubmit your Comment.

    61. Wait two weeks.

    62. Receive a response from the journal, stating that your Comment
    is 1.09 pages long. Unfortunately, Comments can be no more
    than 1.00 pages long, so your Comment cannot be considered
    further until it is shortened to less than 1.00 pages long.

    63. Shorten your Comment by removing such extraneous text as
    logical arguments.

    64. Also, consider kicking off your coauthor from a different
    institution, whose additional address absorbs an entire line of
    valuable Comment space. Wonder why you asked him to help
    out in the first place.

    65. Also, consider performing the necessary legal paperwork to
    shorten your last name, which could, as is, extend the author
    list to an excessive two lines.

    66. Vow that, in the future, you will collaborate only with scientists
    with short names (Russians are definitely out).

    67. Thank your Chinese grad-student coauthor for having a last
    name only two letters long. Make a mental note to include this
    important fact in recommendations you will someday write to
    her potential employers.

    68. Resubmit your Comment.

    69. Wait two weeks.

    70. Receive a response from the senior editor that you cannot thank
    Reviewer #1 for obtaining the missing details and confirming
    your results, as this would give the appearance that the journal
    was biased in your favor in the Comment review process.

    71. Assure the senior editor that, if anyone even considered asking
    about this, you would immediately and emphatically confirm
    under oath, on a stack of Newton’s Principia Mathematica’s, and
    under penalty of torture and death that, in this matter, the
    journal was most definitely not biased in your favor in any way,
    shape, or form in the current geological epoch or any other and
    in this universe or any other, whether real or imagined.

    72. Receive a response from the senior editor that you cannot thank
    Reviewer #1 for obtaining the missing details and confirming
    your results, as this would give the appearance that the journal
    was biased in your favor in the Comment review process.

    73. Remove mention of Reviewer #1’s having obtained the
    necessary details from the acknowledgment, realizing that it’s
    probably for the best in the end. If word were to get out that,
    in order to do so, he had managed to infiltrate the allegedly
    impenetrable ultrahigh-level security of the top-secret United
    States government nuclear-weapons lab, where it happens that
    the authors worked, he would likely be prosecuted by the
    George W. Bush administration for treason. And if he’s
    anything like the other scientists you know, he probably
    wouldn’t last long in Gitmo.

    74. Resubmit your Comment.

    75. Wait two weeks.

    76. Receive a response from the journal stating that, in your
    submitted MS Word file, the references are not double-spaced.
    Your Comment cannot be considered for publication until the
    references in this document are double-spaced.

    77. Add lines between the several references, a process that
    requires a total of twelve seconds.

    78. Resubmit your Comment, a process that, due to dysfunctional
    journal web-site problems, requires a total of three hours.

    79. Wait two weeks.

    80. Receive a response from the senior editor that, while your
    Comment is now short enough and properly formatted, over the
    many modifications and shortenings that have occurred, its tone
    has become somewhat harsh. For example, a sentence that
    originally read, “The authors appear to have perhaps
    accidentally utilized an array size that was somewhat
    disproportionate for the corresponding and relevant waveform
    complexity,” has evolved into: “The authors are wrong.”

    81. Have numerous telephone conversations with the senior editor,
    in which you overwhelm him with the numerous other issues
    you have had to deal with during the Comment evaluation
    process until he forgets about your Comment’s tone. Indeed,
    compared to your verbal tone during these telephone calls, the
    paper’s tone seems downright friendly.

    82. Celebrate this minor victory by deciding not to include in the
    final draft of the Comment’s Acknowledgments section a
    description of certain individuals you’ve encountered during this
    process—a description that would have involved such colorful
    terms as “bonehead” and “cheese-weenie.”

    83. Wonder whether your Comment has finally been sent to the
    authors for their Reply, or instead was lost, trashed, or sent
    back to the reviewers for further review and possible rejection.

    84. Wait four months, during which time, respond to numerous
    close relatives regarding the fraudulence of your life’s work and
    who remind you that at least you still have your health, albeit in
    a noticeably deteriorating state over the past few months. And
    perhaps you’d like to join them at the local bar for its daily
    Happy Hour.

    85. Take them up on their offer, but learn that they expect you to
    pay for drinks, which, regrettably, you can’t because sales at
    the small company you formed to sell devices based on your
    work have fallen to essentially zero.

    86. Learn from one of your grad students that a potential employer
    asked her, “Hasn’t your work recently been discredited?”

    87. Learn that she was not granted an interview.

    88. Attend a conference, where a colleague informs you that he is
    Reviewer #1. Attempt to hug him, but be advised that a simple
    “thank you” for merely doing his job is sufficient.

    89. Learn from Reviewer #1 that he has not received the authors’
    Reply for review, or any other correspondence from the journal
    in the several months since he submitted his review.

    90. Realize that you had stopped carefully reading the journal, and,
    as a result, had missed the “Erratum” published by the authors
    on the paper in question six months earlier, shortly after you
    submitted your short-lived three-page version of the Comment.

    91. Note that, in this “Erratum,” the authors actually admitted no
    errors and instead reported new—similarly incorrect—numbers,
    which they concluded “do not change any conclusions” in their
    original paper.

    92. Feel old, as you can remember the days when Errata involved
    correcting old errors and not introducing new ones.

    93. Note also that, in their “Erratum,” the authors have actually
    responded to some highly specific criticisms of their errors you
    mentioned in the three-page version of your Comment—
    criticisms that you had removed when shortening it to meet the
    journal’s strict 1.00-page limit. Criticisms the authors couldn’t
    possibly have known about in view of the journal’s strict
    confidentiality rules for submitted papers, unless this version of
    your Comment was somehow leaked to them...

    94. Realize that, with this “Erratum,” the authors have effectively
    already published their “Reply” to your Comment.

    95. Note also that, while your Comment has been kicking around for
    close to a year, its publication date nowhere in sight, the
    authors’ “Erratum” was published in a mere nineteen days.

    96. With two mathematical mistakes by the authors to consider now
    and plenty of time in which to consider them, realize that their
    main mathematical error was simply to forget to take the
    square root when computing the “root-mean-square”—a childish
    mistake.
  3. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    20 Aug '09 18:31
    97. Note that this is consistent with the fact that, on both their
    paper and “Erratum,” one of the authors’ names is misspelled.
    This is consistent with the fact that, by now, you’ve already
    spent approximately 100 times as much time correcting their
    errors than they spent making them.

    98. Realize that you must now modify your Comment to also include
    a discussion of the “Erratum.” Ask the editor if you can do this.

    99. Receive a response from the editor that, after much discussion
    among the journal editors, it has been decided that, yes, you
    can do this.

    100. Include a couple of short sentences debunking the “Erratum” in
    your Comment, using up two valuable lines of text and three
    valuable lines in the reference list due to its rather long title.

    101. Realize that your Comment is now several lines longer than the
    do-or-die 1.00-page limit.

    102. Shorten your Comment by omitting noncritical words like “a,”
    “an,” and “the,” giving your Comment exotic foreign feel.

    103. Also, take advantage of the fact that, in some literary circles,
    sentence fragments are considered acceptable. Decide that,
    indeed, verbs are highly over-rated.

    104. Declare “death to all commas”—a worthless piece of
    unnecessary punctuation if ever there was one.

    105. Consider using txt msg shorthand 4 actual words 2 further
    shorten ur Comment, but decide not 2 when u realize that the
    hundreds of frowny-face emoticons u couldn’t resist adding
    actually lengthened ur Comment 2 2 pages

    106. Resubmit your Comment.

    107. Realize that modifying your Comment to include the “Erratum”
    has now, unfortunately, opened it up for additional criticism
    from the editors and possibly the reviewers.

    108. Receive a phone call from the senior editor, who takes
    advantage of this opportunity. He has suddenly remembered
    that your Comment’s tone is a bit harsh. He is concerned that
    the authors, who appear to be highly motivated and quite crafty,
    will complain loudly and aggressively about the obviously
    preferential treatment your Comment is clearly receiving from
    the journal and make his life miserable. He objects to nearly
    every sentence in your Comment, in each case, insisting on a
    considerably longer sentence. He insists that you not say that
    the authors are “wrong” and suggests instead “perhaps
    mistaken.” He also insists on replacing the word “so” with the
    unforgivably long “therefore.”

    109. Realize that, if you accede to his demands, your Comment will
    be an unacceptable 1.2 pages long, dooming your Comment to
    oblivion.

    110. Also learn from the senior editor that you cannot thank
    Reviewer #1 even for simply “confirming your calculations,” as
    this would also reveal the obvious preferential treatment your
    Comment has clearly received from the journal.

    111. Explain that this is a common type of acknowledgment,
    revealing no preferential treatment by the journal whatsoever,
    and send him a copy of a recent paper from his journal in which
    the authors thank a reviewer for actually proving several
    theorems for them.

    112. Learn from the senior editor that another reason that you
    cannot thank Reviewer #1 is that there is no record of Reviewer
    #1 actually having confirmed your calculations. Apparently, the
    paper on which it was printed has, over the eons, turned to dust.

    113. Send a copy of the email from the journal containing Reviewer
    #1’s review to the senior editor.

    114. Also, offer to put the senior editor in touch with Reviewer #1, in
    case all records of Reviewer #1’s identity have also been lost.

    115. Also, learn from the senior editor that he admits no expertise in
    your field but that he will nevertheless not allow you to say in
    your Comment that the approach that you proved twenty years
    earlier is “fundamentally impossible” is “fundamentally
    impossible.” Instead, you must say that it “has not been shown
    to be possible.”

    116. Note that, if this could accurately be said about perpetual-
    motion machines, it would rekindle interest in that long
    forgotten field.

    117. Receive no response.

    118. Realize that this is probably good news.

    119. Encounter a journal representative at a conference, who kindly
    mentions that the one-page version of your Comment was, in
    fact, sent to the authors for their Reply. And, after a series of
    delays, they have submitted it. But, unfortunately, it is extremely
    contentious and will be rejected unless toned down significantly.
    It’s as if, for some reason, they want it to be rejected.

    120. In preparation for the final phase of the Comment process, write
    to the editor asking if you will be able to see the Reply to your
    Comment and make minor modifications in view of it, as allowed
    by most journals.

    121. For once, obtain a quick response: “No.”

    122. Finally receive notice from the editor that the authors’ official
    Reply to your Comment has been reviewed and processed.
    Unfortunately, it was not found suitable for publication and so
    was rejected. And because, for maximum reader enjoyment, it
    is the policy of this journal that a Comment cannot be published
    without a Reply, your Comment cannot be published. This
    decision is final.

    123. Be advised that the journal thanks you for submitting your
    Comment, and you should feel free to submit a paper on a
    different subject in the future, as this journal features the most
    rapid publication of any journal in this field.


    Addendum: This ridiculous scenario actually occurred as written; I
    didn’t make it up. I confess that, of course, I exaggerated the
    responses from competitors, colleagues, friends, relatives, and myself,
    but not those of the journal editors or the authors. Those events all
    happened exactly as I’ve described them.
    The fate described in the last two steps actually occurred to a
    different Comment, which I submitted to a different journal a few
    years earlier, and which, in fact, never was published, precisely for the
    absurd reason given.
    Over a year after submitting the Comment discussed in all the other
    steps, realizing that it was clearly doomed to oblivion, I sent a copy of
    this story to the senior editor’s boss. Shortly afterward, I received a
    call from the senior editor, who had suddenly withdrawn all of his
    objections. The Comment was fine as it was, and it would be
    published!
    However, I was still not allowed to see the authors’ Reply until it
    was actually in print. And when it appeared, it reiterated the same
    erroneous claims and numbers (for the third time!) and then
    introduced a few new erroneous claims, which, of course, I am not
    allowed to respond to. So I’ve simply given up.
    I’ve withheld the names of the various individuals in this story
    because my purpose is not to make accusations (as much as I would
    like to; they’re certainly deserved), but instead to effect some social
    change. Nearly everyone I’ve encountered who has written a
    Comment has found the system to be heavily biased against well-
    intentioned correcting of errors—often serious ones—in the archival
    literature. I find this quite disturbing.
    And would it have killed these authors to email me their “results”
    prior to publishing them, so I could’ve enlightened them before they
    committed themselves to their errors in print, thus avoiding all this
    pain?
    Finally, I should also mention that, to keep this story light and at
    least somewhat entertaining, I actually simplified it somewhat,
    omitting numerous additional steps involving journal web-site crashes,
    undelivered emails, unreturned phone calls to dysfunctional pagers,
    complaints to higher levels of journal management, and some rather
    disturbing (and decidedly unfunny) behavior by the authors and
    certain editors.

    After all, I wouldn’t want to discourage you from submitting a
    Comment.
  4. 21 Aug '09 20:48 / 3 edits
    Sounds like this involved an issue that people have strong feelings about (global warming comes to mind). And it appears the editor was using every rule he could think of to avoid printing the comment -- if there really was a 1.00 page limit for comments, then why did it only apply to your comment?

    Another possibility is that this prestigious journal did not want to have to deal with the embarassment of publishing a study that was so obviously flawed - and your comment would have exposed everything.

    Perhaps you should have gone to a rival journal - that probably would have been very eager to use your results (and your story) to bring holier-than-thou journal back into the earthly realm.

    Perhaps there needs to be a professional journal (meta-journal?) devoted to discussing the procedures used by various journals. A place where you could produce your whole tale for the entire scientific community to see.
  5. 22 Aug '09 09:32
    Good grief!

    Levels of incompetence like this always make me suspicious of other motivations. I suspect political interference, especially if global warming was the topic. How else will they get us to buy into all those bloody ridiculous wind turbines!

    Good luck.
  6. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    22 Aug '09 11:27
    I think I gave the wrong impression. This didn't happen to me but to professor Rick Trebino: http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/rtrebino.html

    This type of things happens a lot in academia but doesn't get talked about much.
  7. 26 Aug '09 12:48 / 1 edit
    In college, I took a class on the "sociology of science" and the experiences of professor Trebino would fit right in. Studies that challenge a prevailing value system have a much harder time gaining acceptance - while studies supporting those beliefs might escape rigorous questioning.

    There's a tendency to think that science occurs by itself - when obviously, it involves a community of human beings - and those people are subject to the same social and political forces as everyone else.
  8. 27 Aug '09 08:49
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    In college, I took a class on the "sociology of science" and the experiences of professor Trebino would fit right in. Studies that challenge a prevailing value system have a much harder time gaining acceptance - while studies supporting those beliefs might escape rigorous questioning.
    According to the story, the professors lifes work was challenged by an article. Surely it was the professors point of view that was the 'prevailing value system'?
    I also found it interesting that he chose to publish his findings only through a comment, surely he must have at some point published is findings through other channels?
    Further, a large part of the story including things like the 1 page limit seem to have been due to poor design of the magazines website or failure of the professor to use it or realize its limitations. He seems to have struggled constantly with the website but never thought to simply bypass it. I find it highly unlikely that the magazine only accepts comments via the website and he seems to have been in regular communication with the editors yet he repeatedly went back to a dysfunctional website.

    I would have tried to get round the 1 page limit by splitting my comment into multiple comments.
  9. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    27 Aug '09 09:02
    Originally posted by Melanerpes


    There's a tendency to think that science occurs by itself - when obviously, it involves a community of human beings - and those people are subject to the same social and political forces as everyone else.
    Has this insight not been factored into the philosophy of science somewhere?