AES and Its Papers

[botrytis]

WOW - I have been involved with peer review process, in another field of study, but I think it bears talking about as in response to this.

 

When I was a post doc, at the University of Georgia, I was asked to review papers for several journals. During this process, which was from my mentor at the school, I gave my reviews of the papers I was asked to review.  I was also told, that my reviews were too harsh because they were friends of my mentor and he just wanted them passed through. I would not do that and was put in the dog house due to that ( very apropos for UGA - 'Mericans will get the pun there). THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH PEER REVIEW, friendships should not matter but they do. Others, only allow members to peer review. They do not send it out of the organization. Again, this is common.

 

There is good points and bad points to this process. I am just pointing out some flaws.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, DuckToller said:

It sounds to me like the derogative term  "not peer reviewed" indicates (for many not involved within the scientific environment) that "peer reviewed" carries intrinsically the knighthood & highest order of trust level for available scientific objectivity ... and forgoes to review the many different processes behind that term. Given the position of AES you described above, they may not be ultimately unhappy about that ...
Given how many money changes annually from industry to source academic research a peer reviewed paper receives its value imho from the credibility of the peer and not genuinly from the journal it is published in .
.. i could be wrong with this biased view, pls challenge ...

 

Well, non peer reviewed journals are like Biofuels - Biofuel Research Journal (biofueljournal.com) Not saying they are bad but they are more like commercials rather than actual scientific papers.

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

How is AES different from other respected journals that publish the names of peer reviewers without these apparent "grudges" coming into play? If egos are that fragile, perhaps the selection process of these peer reviewers requires re-examination.

OK. first is a conference paper (Batelle paper) - they are usually based on presentations at a conference or a poster and are only peer reviewed before they are accepted (on the abstract sent to the conference - 99% are accepted if they are on topic).

 

The second is a peer reviewed paper - notice the difference in style. Also notice the time from submission to publication - almost a year and that is common since there is always revisions and the paper is reviewed again.

 

With most professional journals, one does not need to be a member to publish in them. If you look at the RS and PC paper, them being mentioned as lifetime members of AES gives me pause - SO WHAT? Why is that ON the paper at all?

 

Battelle_03MTfinalWDH351.pdf RS_Laccase1996.pdf

[botrytis]

Now, the reason I called the BS article an advertisement is the back page of the article. In opinions, letters to the editor, etc. one sees the background of the authors listed. In regular scientific papers. one does not see that. The science should stand alone, the person's background should not be important to the content of the paper.

 

 

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Did it have links to their Facebook pages? 😁

 

P.S.:  I remember the great Wazoo.  Really nice amp.

 

What's a Facebook?

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

Yes.  I understand.  
 

But with all our engineering and science can we overcome poor recording practices or the quirks of our home environment?
 

 

 

I think it can but, we need to separate the dust from the diamonds. All we can do is setup the best system/room for the money we can afford. We cannot control what others do but we can understand it and thereby explain what is happening. It is complex but not unexplainable. 

 

Some practices might never change does that mean we need to give up? Probably not.

[botrytis]

17 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Right.  The onus is on the marketing abuse on not on the source.  Hardy uncommon in many fields.

 

The problem is the source is allowing the marketing abuse. AN example is the paper that was published about vaccines and Autism, that vaccines cause it. The paper was finally pulled and disavowed after a through and lengthy research into the author and his methodologies. The author was also convicted and jailed for his malicious lies and mistruths.

 

The problem is, once the genie is out of the bottle, it is hard to get back in. Anti-vaxxers still quote this paper as truth, even though it has been proven as a sham and a lie. Once something is said, on the internet, it is there forever.

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Clearly, their review process failed.

That is unfortunate.  Would public revelation (and/or shaming) of the reviewers have made any difference?

 

It might have. People did comment that the paper was wrong, but the author basically assailed anyone who questioned his article. Maybe if people would have looked closer and questioned more, that article might have never came out.

 

As far as MQA is concerned and after seeing the RMAF video of what happened to Chris, one phrase comes to mind, 'Thou dost protest too much.'