GCMs-misuse? part II
len at schur.math.nwu.edu
Fri Dec 10 09:01:16 EST 1993
In article <CHsDpq.Ky9 at murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rjw9y at envsci.evsc.virginia.edu. (rjw9y) writes:
>I am the author of GCMs-misuse. Thanks to Rick Adair for coming to my
>rescue. I responded to Len's grammar flame by e-mail to him. My
>feeling is that some jargon like '2xCO2' and 'eigenevctor analysis' may
>have been the problem.
Let me refer the poster to my signature. I don't get confused by terms
like `2XCO2' and `eigenvector analysis'.
As best I can tell from the rest of the current posting, he is complaining
that a paper or papers were rejected by Science and by Nature on the
basis of criteria that were applied inconsistently vis a vis GCMs.
This was not clear to me in the original posting, which I think was
very badly written. (I am still not sure if the poster is one of
the authors of these papers.) As to the complaint, I have the
following comment. The refereeing process is hardly perfect.
It is certainly possible that the `peer group' doing the reviewing
is biased against the approach taken by the authors. It is also
possible that the authors don't understand the basic principles
of the subject. I don't see how we can possibly determine the
truth of these matters in a forum like this. I suggest that the
authors keep trying journals until they find one that is more
sympathetic to their approach.
Leonard Evens len at math.nwu.edu 708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
More information about the Ag-forst