illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) If I go public in MDPI I would need a five qualified peer reviewers to my theory. Do we have objective candidates here? I mean by objective that you can have any opinion on my work but it has to be reasonable. Actual theory is like only eight pages so it's not too much of a work. So fellows... I need five names and your email addresses (in PM). I think that I'm not allowed to offer any kind of reward for doing peer reviewing BUT the reward is got by other means (from involvement). I can info anonymous head count in this thread almost real-time. Lines are open! Aaa... arXiv is an other option! I think that I need only one person who can give endorsement for me. So I can use that also if I can find endorser. Actually I asked endorsement from Garrett Lisi, I had to Edited October 12, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 You submit your theory to a reputable journal and they do the peer review. You don't go out and find reviewers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) You submit your theory to a reputable journal and they do the peer review. You don't go out and find reviewers. I do know that. But editors in those journals are too damn busy and they don't take chances with speculative theory. I have tried couple of those. viXra is one option also but I don't think it has as much weight than for example arXiv. MDPI requires five names but they necessarily don't use them all if any. WOW! Put "theory of everything" into Google search and be amazed!!! ToEbi at the first page! It seems that that happened only in Finland Edited October 12, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I do know that. But editors in those journals are too damn busy and they don't take chances with speculative theory. I have tried couple of those. If your submission has not even got as far as a referee, then it is likely to be in rather bad shape. Usually once you submit a paper for publication one of the editors will have a quick look at it to gauge if it seems appropriate for the journal. If it is obviously not on a subject they are interested in or if the work is clearly not of the accepted standard then they will reject it at this stage. The next stage is that the paper will be passed on to two or three referees, who will make a more informed report on the submission. The length and details of the reports can vary a lot. Some times you get a few lines, sometimes a few pages. Anyway, they typically state one of three things: the paper is rejected, the paper needs a little more work before it is accepted or it is accepted as is. The first and second options are more common than the last. On a personal anecdote, I have had papers rejected, all scientists do. But I have not had one rejected before it has been sent to the referees. viXra is one option also but I don't think it has as much weight than for example arXiv. Don't use viXra, just brows some of the preprints there and you will see why I say that. The arXiv is much better, though as you note you need an endorsement. Try and find someone who has worked on something similar to you. For example who have you talked to about your work? I managed to get an endorsement rather easily after sending work and discussing things with a leading expert in my field. You should do the same. MDPI requires five names but they necessarily don't use them all if any. I am not familiar with MDPI. However, I do know that some journals ask you to recommend suitable people to review your paper. Is this all you are asking for? If you cannot recommend anyone, then just tell them so and they will find people. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) If your submission has not even got as far as a referee, then it is likely to be in rather bad shape. Usually once you submit a paper for publication one of the editors will have a quick look at it to gauge if it seems appropriate for the journal. If it is obviously not on a subject they are interested in or if the work is clearly not of the accepted standard then they will reject it at this stage. The next stage is that the paper will be passed on to two or three referees, who will make a more informed report on the submission. The length and details of the reports can vary a lot. Some times you get a few lines, sometimes a few pages. Anyway, they typically state one of three things: the paper is rejected, the paper needs a little more work before it is accepted or it is accepted as is. The first and second options are more common than the last. On a personal anecdote, I have had papers rejected, all scientists do. But I have not had one rejected before it has been sent to the referees. Don't use viXra, just brows some of the preprints there and you will see why I say that. The arXiv is much better, though as you note you need an endorsement. Try and find someone who has worked on something similar to you. For example who have you talked to about your work? I managed to get an endorsement rather easily after sending work and discussing things with a leading expert in my field. You should do the same. I am not familiar with MDPI. However, I do know that some journals ask you to recommend suitable people to review your paper. Is this all you are asking for? If you cannot recommend anyone, then just tell them so and they will find people. Excellent post! With one journal, panel of people (referees?) checked the paper but at that point they rejected with few tips with the paper. But that happened two months ago, so my paper wasn't that good at that point. MDPI 's submission process requires that you must fill five reviewers otherwise you can't submit. And yes that's all I'm asking for. Edited October 12, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 MDPI? From a quick browse they don't really have a journal that would fit this sort of article - and I am not sure about a publisher who wants over a thousand bucks for the privilege of publishing an article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 MDPI? From a quick browse they don't really have a journal that would fit this sort of article - and I am not sure about a publisher who wants over a thousand bucks for the privilege of publishing an article. That's true there wasn't proper journal for my paper but I thought technologies journal would be close enough. Thousand bucks? I'm not aware of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Excellent post! With one journal, panel of people (referees?) checked the paper but at that point they rejected with few tips with the paper. But that happened two months ago, so my paper wasn't that good at that point. What you have to do, unless they have asked you to resubmit to them, is take the advice to improve your paper and submit it somewhere else. You do run the risk of the same referees reviewing your paper, so you should not just submit exactly the same thing elsewhere. You should ask an expert in your field for advice on this. You should be aware that some journals charge you per page published. This is okay if you have some funding to cover this, otherwise you should submit to journals that do not charge the author, but rather charge the reader (usually in the form of a library subscription). Can you outline what your paper is about? I can then see if I can help you, though unless it is something close to my area of expertise I might not be able to offer any real advice or act as a reviewer. Edited October 12, 2012 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 What you have to do, unless they have asked you to resubmit to them, is take the advice to improve your paper and submit it somewhere else. You do run the risk of the same referees reviewing your paper, so you should not just submit exactly the same thing elsewhere. You should ask an expert in your field for advice on this. You should be aware that some journals charge you per page published. This is okay if you have some funding to cover this, otherwise you should submit to journals that do not charge the author, but rather charge the reader (usually in the form of a library subscription). Can you outline what your paper is about? I can then see if I can help you, though unless it is something close to my area of expertise I might not be able to offer any real advice or act as a reviewer. Well... few modes hate the thing but the paper is about the theory of everything. Originally I tried to explain only gravitation but soon I realized that the same phenomenon applies to strong interaction and EM interaction. I realized that there is torsion field (ether) even it's banned from science at least the term ether I found some evidence to support my ideas and I did more experiments of my own. You can download the paper from my signature or I can send it to you. The main point in my theory is that gravitation constant G isn't constant at all. It is totally depended on object's rotational frequency. With that idea the rest was "easy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 In the interest of full disclosure: Discussion #1 Discussion #2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 In the interest of full disclosure: Discussion #1 Discussion #2 Thanks! Those bring some golden memories You can see how my theory develops in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Well... few modes hate the thing but the paper is about the theory of everything. I understand why you feel the need to say this, but it isn't true, none of it. You simply failed to support your claims, after being given multiple chances to provide such support. Nobody on staff "hates" your ideas, they simply don't find them valid. We even helped in developing experimentation, so thanks very much, Mr Ungrateful, for your "hateful" remarks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 I understand why you feel the need to say this, but it isn't true, none of it. You simply failed to support your claims, after being given multiple chances to provide such support. Nobody on staff "hates" your ideas, they simply don't find them valid. We even helped in developing experimentation, so thanks very much, Mr Ungrateful, for your "hateful" remarks. Yep, you indeed helped, thanks for that! At that time I wasn't ready with my theory. In current version there is third law which must be used in case of experiments like the bike wheel experiment, so no problem with bike wheels anymore So you don't hate my theory... I don't buy that. For example you don't allow own topic for ToEbi, even it's much more mature and powerful. To me, you hate it. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 So you don't hate my theory... I don't buy that. For example you don't allow own topic for ToEbi, even it's much more mature and powerful. To me, you hate it. We hate that you refused to follow the rules of the forums, and specifically those of Speculations. You were given several chances to comply, and you refused. You even got a rare second chance, and you blew it. This is just shifting the blame, making your failure to do something resembling science somehow be our fault. Blaming us isn't going to garner any sympathy for your cause among the people who decide things. It certainly doesn't show contrition or learning. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 So you don't hate my theory... I don't buy that. For example you don't allow own topic for ToEbi, even it's much more mature and powerful. To me, you hate it. They closed the thread because you refused to follow the rules of the forums, to wit failing to provide evidence and address the refutations of others. That aside, this isn't the place to discuss moderation. I merely brought up the old threads in the interest of making sure that anyone who decided to support reviewing your paper has all the available information on the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 We hate that you refused to follow the rules of the forums, and specifically those of Speculations. You were given several chances to comply, and you refused. You even got a rare second chance, and you blew it. This is just shifting the blame, making your failure to do something resembling science somehow be our fault. Blaming us isn't going to garner any sympathy for your cause among the people who decide things. It certainly doesn't show contrition or learning. I did mistakes in every way, sure! I'm a human being, making mistakes come as a feature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 So you don't hate my theory... I don't buy that. For example you don't allow own topic for ToEbi, even it's much more mature and powerful. To me, you hate it. Think about it. If your idea had any merit you could demonstrate, and we could analyze and reproduce successful results, and if it then went on to become peer-reviewed and part of mainstream science, don't you think we'd all be anxious to be part of it? What you say makes no sense here. As far as your idea NOW being much more mature and powerful, well, we've heard that before. In fact, we believed you last time you said this and allowed you to re-present it. That was just more of the same, no supportive evidence and plenty of evidence that refuted your claims. And I think that's why you're having so much trouble finding journals to review it. If it can be easily refuted here where we have a mix of professionals and skilled amateurs, I think most journals would feel it wasn't worth their reviewer's time. I don't say that to be mean. If you were designing a new car and presenting it to Mercedes Benz, they'd probably stop you when they got to the part where it has no wheels, and wouldn't bother looking at the rest of your design until you could adequately explain how it was going to move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 Think about it. If your idea had any merit you could demonstrate, and we could analyze and reproduce successful results, and if it then went on to become peer-reviewed and part of mainstream science, don't you think we'd all be anxious to be part of it? What you say makes no sense here. Interesting to see your reactions when my theory is either published or I have made commercial product(s) based on it. I bet you haven't read the latest version, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Interesting to see your reactions when my theory is either published or I have made commercial product(s) based on it. I bet you haven't read the latest version, have you? Thanks for not listening. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Thanks for not listening. I have listened you alright. It's quite hard to conclude that you sincerely are excited about my theory. But if I'm wrong then my apologies. I give you a new opportunity So, have you read the latest version? What you think about it? Edited October 12, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I have listened you alright. It's quite hard to conclude that you sincerely are excited about my theory. But if I'm wrong then my apologies. Hold your arms out wide. Picture on one hand "hatred of your idea". Picture on the other hand "sincerely excited about your idea". Now bring your hands together and picture me right in the middle (try not to choke me). My apologies if I gave you any other impressions. I would like to say that the staff consensus is that you did try your best to follow the rules of Speculation. You responded fairly well to criticism but were simply unable to come up with supportive evidence. The experiment was pretty cool, but you misunderstood its relevance. We gave you another chance to present your idea when you promised you had come up with more work with supportive evidence. What you came up with was more areas to apply your original flawed premise. You wasted that chance, and then you sent a foul-mouthed PM to one of the staff members. It was only your earlier efforts at being civil and attempting to learn that kept you from being banned instead of suspended. It made me wonder though, was that just a lapse in judgement or was that the real you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 You wasted that chance, and then you sent a foul-mouthed PM to one of the staff members. It was only your earlier efforts at being civil and attempting to learn that kept you from being banned instead of suspended. It made me wonder though, was that just a lapse in judgement or was that the real you? You mean that iodine pm? Well, that was pure frustration due to my own time resource restrictions. My bad, no question about it. I'll make it up to iodine in the future, cos she did something that saved me from a lot of possible trouble. I learned during the ban that if I disclose my patent application premature there won't be any change to get any serious compensation in case of someone is violating my invention before patent is given. Only given patent allows me to get serious compensation in case of patent violation. So... there was something good from my stupid behaviour. But as I said, I'll make it up to iodine and it won't happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) So, have you read the latest version? What you think about it? Same nonsense as before. Edited October 12, 2012 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 This idea has already been peer reviewed. The peers though it was hogwash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 13, 2012 Author Share Posted October 13, 2012 Same nonsense as before. Question was to Phi. I do know your attitude already. But if you read it, what is your reasoning behind that statement? What part is nonsense and why? This idea has already been peer reviewed. The peers though it was hogwash. Read the latest version. If you refer to two months old discussions you will be badly informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now