dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid
Thu Apr 17 02:23:21 EST 2003
KP-PC <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote:
> Einstein was allowed to Publish his work. I have not been allowed to
> Publish my work.
In a way you did. You provide AoK to anybody at no cost, so you are
If you had the money, you could publish it yourself in print.
Another thing is that maybe nobody has wanted to put in their money to
publish your AoK and its comments. The world is a free marketplace.
I recently re-read a monograph on the history of thyroid gland
research. It is extremely interesting, but the author has published it
himself. Why? I guess that none of the official publishers wanted to put
their money in it. It is their right. So this guy funds it himself, and
takes the possible winnings himself.
AoK may seem too short for a monography, or too long for an article.
Still, there are similarly long articles in review journals. The fact
that AoK is a hypertext does not prevent it from being possible to edit
into a normal review article without spoiling the message.
Thus, I see nothing technical preventing printing AoK.
The question remains, have you offered it to editors (book, journal)?
What kind? How many times? Did they turn it down at once, or have it
reviewed? Did they suggest modifications? Did you try modifications to
make it more readable or comprehensible?
You say that you have fought for your theory. Did you? A newsgroup is
not the place to fight for one's theory with a view to publishing it.
In science, the normal way to publish a text is to target it
according to the expectations of the audiance of a certain scientific
journal, and format it according to the rules given by the editor. Then
you send it to the editor. He may reject it outright - then you find
another forum and send it there. If he sends it to reviewers - fine. The
reviewers will with 90% certainty suggest changes at least, or tell you
where you went wrong in their opinion. You get a chance to resubmit
after changes, although I must admit that it is difficult to understand
that when you get a latter saying "Unfortunately, based on reviewer's
vcomments, we cannot publish your work in its present form. If, however,
you make proper changes, we are open to resubmittance" or sonething
along those lines. Rules are: do not bicker with editors or reviewers.
They do represent the probable readership. Take their advice. If on
resubmittal of the modified text you do not pass, take the work to another
journal. Use all reviewers' comments to improve your text, because the
next reviewer is going to make the same observations. Then take it to
another journal, and another. Never believe that your text will pass
somewhere without improvement, if somebody else is paying for the
publication. Publishers are not censors, they are business people.
If you have tried at least ten publishers, improving your text in
between according to suggestions, and still nobody will print it, the
implication is that very few people are assumed to be interested enough
to read what you write. Then you just send it to a select number of
fellow scientists and hope that it strikes a chord somewhere. At least
chances are that a copy will be saved for posterity and maybe someone in
two hundred years sees its value. But it is totally improductive to
keep lamenting about the ignorance and incomprehension of people. If the
text does not impress, neither will the wailing. It just makes it less
comprehensible and less appealing. At least in northern latitudes.
More information about the Neur-sci