 |
 |
This is a quaote from Paula: But the evolutionists don't let the intelligent design papers be printed in their journals, and encourage the public to believe that they just follow myths. Full Disclosure. I am an Associate Editor of a Technical Journal (IEEE Transactions On Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control). As such I have some experience about the process of publishing a scientific paper. It does NOT work the way Paula implies. I wrote this up primarily to give people an idea on how research is done (my first note) and how the results are published (this note). K. F. <>How does a Scientific Paper get published? What is the rejection process? <>Let us say a scientist has followed the Scientific method and created a hypothesis designed an experiment to test the hypothesis and has on the basis of the results decided that the results prove the hypothesis. He/she then writes up the hypothesis, the experimental design and the results showing that there is agreement. The scientist then selects a Journal which covers the subject area of the work. The paper is sent to the Chief Editor, who assigns it to an Associate Editor (AE) with the requisite expertise in the field. This can be difficult because the work necessarily is leading edge and the there often only few people worldwide who have the necessary deep knowledge of the subject matter. A peer review takes place, that is the AE selects about three knowledgeable people to review the paper. The reviewers agree that it is a good paper and usually make some suggestions for improvements or clarifications. Sometimes it is an “aha” paper and the editors and reviewers generally will notice it and enjoy the process. The paper then is published. This means that at least a handful of people agree on the validity and value of the work. This is when things work. <>There are people who come up with crackpot ideas analogous to charlatans. These ideas must be tested but the charlatans cannot come up with a valid experiment or valid results. The idea is then rejected by the scientific community. There is long history of creating energy out of nothing and some people are actually quite clever about it, even getting patents but physics says energy cannot be created or destroyed, a concept which foils <>the charlatan. The extent to which politics plays a role is twofold. First any scientist must find somebody to fund his work. Very often it is the Government. There is also a peer review process for obtaining the funding. This process is similar to the peer review process used for publishing. The funds are usually limited and politics plays some role in how the funds are distributed, if at all (stem cells, PD research). A scientist never funds his own research. This is an important filter to achieve a reasonably just distribution of the funds. Another way politics plays a role is essentially by reputation. If a Nobel Prize scientist endorses certain work it is much more likely to be well regarded and funded. If a group establishes a good reputation, again more funding is likely. If you support my work I will support yours is possible but has only a weak effect because of the peer review process. If somebody has a really revolutionary idea he has to be very persuasive to convince others that the idea is valid and not that of a charlatan. This can get difficult if the experiment is big and expensive. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn