Originally posted by XanthosNZIn considering the exceptions to the rule for each, one realizes a glaring difference between the two, especially with respect to their individual (desired) applications.
So the limits on Newton's laws are scope what are the limits on the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium? Scope?
Originally posted by XanthosNZScientific:
I'd love to hear you explaination for how the Bible is scientific. Or a research journal. Or peer-reviewed.
1. Action took place.
2. It was observed.
3. It was recorded.
Journal:
See above, number three.
Peer-reviewed:
1. Action took place.
2. It was observed by groups of people.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzIn light of this, what are you trying to demonstrate with your comparison of impact factors of botany journals with those of IEEE journals?
Unfortunately, journals within subjects are only comparible with each other and not across subjects.
I invite you to review this page:
http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/journmag/journalcitations.html
According to the JCR, IEEE publishes:
* 18 of the top 20 journals in the field of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
* 9 of the top 10 journals in Telecommunications (up from 7 in 2004)
* 7 of top 10 journals in Computer Science, Hardware & Architecture
* 8 of top 20 journals in Computer Science, Information Systems
* 8 of top 20 journals in Computer Science, Software Engineering
* and high-ranking journals in several additional fields of technology
Looks like you need to do some better research and analysis. No wonder your papers get rejected, and not just because you don't know what 'because' means.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYep, and your comment that you've never had anything rejected still sounds like BS to me.
In light of this, what are you trying to demonstrate with your comparison of impact factors of botany journals with those of IEEE journals?
I invite you to review this page:
http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/journmag/journalcitations.html
[quote]
According to the JCR, IEEE publishes:
* 18 of the top 20 journals in the field of Elect ...[text shortened]... No wonder your papers get rejected, and not just because you don't know what 'because' means.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzFrankly, I don't give a rat's [behind] whether you believe me. You're just a botanist, and one from New Zealand at that. You are also a drunk and a sloppy writer. Your impact factor upon me barely measures above 0.
Yep, and your comment that you've never had anything rejected still sounds like BS to me.
I'm more concerned about telerion doubting me, not because I have any special desire for him to affirm my successful publication history, but merely because I would like to think that two well-educated mathematicians from Virginia could continue to share a bit of mutual respect. I wouldn't doubt telerion if he claimed to have a stellar list of publications. I'm confident that one day he will, one that surpasses even mine, as I am no longer in the game while he is just getting into it. I don't think I've given him any reason to suspect my credibility. I have to wonder if he's a bit jealous of me, due to me having attended the best school in Virginia, while he is stuck at the second best.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleslol scribs.
Frankly, I don't give a rat's [behind] whether you believe me. You're just a botanist, and one from New Zealand at that.
I'm more concerned about telerion doubting me, not because I have any special desire for him to affirm my successful publication history, but merely because I would like to think that two well-educated mathematicians from Virg ...[text shortened]... o me having attended the best school in Virginia, while he is stuck at the second best.
Hey, I don't know how things work in your field, but in mine everybody gets rejected. It just goes with the territory. You want to place your work in the best possible journal so you submit to the best one at which you think you have a remote shot. Then if you get rejected, you go down a few notches and try again. Iterate until you receive an approving letter or until the quality of the next journal is below your subjective cutoff. In that event, you go back and re-work the paper.
If you tell me that you've never been rejected and that the journals that feature your work are top notch in your field, then I'll believe you and grant you that that is quite impressive.
The only feature of your post that could still cause me some consternation would be that you claim to reject papers based solely upon a few minor grammatical errors. Surely that, if no other portion, was hyperbole?
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionA bit, perhaps. I've availed myself of the Revise and Resubmit option numerous times. However, I dispute that it is part of the referee's or reviewer's role to help the authors produce a publishable paper at the grammatical level. I'll be damned if I'd ever take somebody by the hand and walk him through the semantics of 'because' in my comments.
The only feature of your post that could still cause me some consternation would be that you claim to reject papers based solely upon a few minor grammatical errors. Surely that, if no other portion, was hyperbole?
I take a hard line, because clear writing is important to me, and it is too often neglected by both authors and referees. Aside from foreign language issues, like somebody from Thailand trying to publish in English, language problems in ones native language are almost always indicative of some underlying conceptual or analytical problems. Once those issues are resolved, clear expression follows naturally. That is, demand clear writing, and you're assuring yourself of getting clear thinking in the bargain.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAww didums, getting to you am I? Sorry Sribs, but you have apparently no clue whatsoever. You even said it yourself - you've been advised to resubmit, and that is.... A rejection. Still, you'll try and lie your way out of this one. Well, if that's the best you can muster, so be it. As for your line on English and grammer it's simply (a) hyperbole and (b) laughable. Were I a journal editor, you would never make it onto a review panel of mine. Science and technology are universal in nature; you'd be relegating most of Japan and Asia from publishing, which is ludicrous. As for your slurs against plant science, well, let's just say that human society is not based upon consumer electronics.
A bit, perhaps. I've availed myself of the Revise and Resubmit option numerous times. However, I dispute that it is part of the referee's or reviewer's role to help the authors produce a publishable paper at the grammatical level. I'll be damned if I'd ever take somebody by the hand and walk him through the semantics of 'because' in my comments. ...[text shortened]... nd clear writing, and you're assuring yourself of getting clear thinking in the bargain.