[打听，资料，趣闻] 1905年前后《Annalen der Physik》的拒稿率

https://professorbuzzkill.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Albert-Einstein-Tongue-Wallpaper-4-e1528838004807.jpg

一、打听：1905年前后《Annalen der Physik》的拒稿率的权威原始出处   

   施郁老师在 2016-08-01 的博文《爱因斯坦被拒授过博士学位和副教授职位吗？》里说：

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-4395-993806.html

   1095年爱因斯坦奇迹年的论文“全部发表在Annalen der Physik。当时该刊拒稿率只有百分之几。”

   刘进平老师在 2018-05-07 的博文《爱因斯坦奇迹年的5篇论文经过同行评议了吗？》 精选 里说：

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-39731-1112810.html

   “爱因斯坦在1905年将他的四篇著名论文在《Annalen der Physik》发表，当时这些论文并没有采用我们今天所谓的同行评议过程。该杂志的接受率非常高（约为90%-95%）。”

二、一些相关资料

https://www.editage.com/insights/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too?refer=scroll-to-1-article&refer-type=article

   The first part of Einstein’s career was in the German-speaking world. The German physics journals, in which Einstein published his breakthrough work, didn’t have the same peer-review system we use today.

   For instance, the Annalen der Physik, in which Einstein published his four famous papers in 1905, did not subject those papers to the same review process. The journal had a remarkably high acceptance rate (of about 90-95%). The identifiable editors were making the final decisions about what to publish. It is the storied editor Max Planck who described his editorial philosophy as:

   To shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions than that of having been too gentle in evaluating them.

   Many of the core scientific discoveries were not peer reviewed to modern standards. For example, the publication of the foundational paper describing the double helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 would have been jeopardised in the context of the classic review system as we know it, because of its speculative nature.

   【机器翻译】爱因斯坦职业生涯的第一部分是在德语世界。爱因斯坦发表突破性工作的德国物理学期刊没有我们今天使用的同行评审系统。

   例如，爱因斯坦1905年发表四篇著名论文的《物理学年鉴》没有对这些论文进行同样的审查。该杂志的接受率非常高（约90-95%）。可识别的编辑正在就发表什么做出最终决定。著名编辑马克斯·普朗克将他的编辑哲学描述为：

   与其说是因为过于温和地评价奇怪的意见，不如说是因为压制了奇怪的意见。

   许多核心科学发现没有按照现代标准进行同行评审。例如，詹姆斯·沃森和弗朗西斯·克里克于1953年发表的描述DNA双螺旋结构的基础论文，由于其推测性，在我们所知的经典审查制度的背景下会受到威胁。

   The story reminds us that double-blind peer review is only a relatively recent invention. For most of history of science, scientific advances were judged in a much more open and public fashion. It also shows us that the peer-review process can provoke displeasure among even the greatest. It can mean scientists not listening to criticism. Sometimes the result is that many ideas don’t see the light of day.

   These anecdotal lessons point to wider issues with the peer-review process, which itself hasn’t been studied in much detail. The review process was meant to save scientists from mistakes and public embarrassment. The idea was that peers help to improve our work, and the review process of high-status journals can serve as “stamps of approval” or simply signal of quality.

   But sometimes a collegial discussion rather than formalised peer review can be a better way of getting the message across. So far the peer-review process has been largely an item of faith – something that probably produces better science. However, there is a growing body of evidence which is challenging this notion.

   【机器翻译】这个故事提醒我们，双盲同行评审只是一项相对较新的发明。在科学史的大部分时间里，科学进步都是以一种更加开放和公开的方式来评判的。这也向我们表明，即使是最伟大的人，同行评审过程也会引起不满。这可能意味着科学家们不听批评。有时，结果是许多想法都没有实现。

   这些轶事教训指出了同行评审过程中更广泛的问题，而同行评审过程本身并没有得到太多的详细研究。审查过程旨在使科学家免于犯错和公众尴尬。这个想法是，同行有助于改进我们的工作，高地位期刊的审查过程可以作为“批准的印章”，或者只是质量的信号。

   但有时，集体讨论而不是正式的同行评审可能是传达信息的更好方式。到目前为止，同行评审过程在很大程度上是一种信仰——这可能会产生更好的科学。然而，越来越多的证据对这一概念提出了挑战。

https://www.editage.com/insights/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too?refer=scroll-to-1-article&refer-type=article

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great

   Historians Christa Jungnickel and Russel McCormmach have studied in some detail the editorial policies of Annalen der Physik, the leading German journal of the early 1900s, and note that “the rejection rate of the journal was remarkably low, no higher than five or ten percent.” 11 They describe the editors’ reluctance to reject papers from established physicists, even relatively junior ones. As they put it, “Now and then the journal published bad papers by good physicists.” In one specific example, editor Paul Drude annoyed Max Planck by printing what Planck considered a worthless paper, whose author had “appealed to [Drude] personally, and Drude lacked the heart to refuse him.” 11  

   【机器翻译】历史学家Christa Jungnickel和Russel McCormmach详细研究了20世纪初德国领先期刊《物理年鉴》的编辑政策，并指出“该期刊的拒绝率非常低，不超过5%或10%。”11他们描述了编辑们不愿拒绝知名物理学家的论文，即使是相对初级的物理学家。正如他们所说，“该杂志偶尔会发表优秀物理学家的糟糕论文。”在一个具体的例子中，编辑保罗·德鲁德（Paul Drude）发表了普朗克认为毫无价值的论文，这让马克斯·普朗克很恼火，因为这篇论文的作者“亲自向德鲁德（Drude）求助，德鲁德没有拒绝他的心。”11

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great

   C. Jungnickel , R. McCormmach , Intellectual Mastery of Nature: Theoretical Physics from Ohm to Einstein, vol. 2, U. of Chicago Press, Chicago (1986), p. 309.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03544-z

   Physicists refer to 1905 as Albert Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis. In that year he published four papers that transformed the understanding of the physical laws of the universe (Isaacson 2007). Similarly, historians of science suggest that Isaac Newton enjoyed his own ‘Miraculous Year’ in 1666. In this exceptionally productive year he developed the integral calculus, experimentally verified the composite nature of light, and refined his gravitational theory (Palter 1970). Historians also point to the ‘Year of Wonders’ of 1543, when Copernicus and Vesalius initiated the scientific revolution by transforming prior understandings of planetary motion and the human body (Gribbin 2004). In their various ways, the words Mirabilis, Miraculous or Wonders denote exceptional years in the history of science. Though rare, those exceptional years changed the trajectory of knowledge and the careers of their authors. Those peak productive achievements created scientific revolutions and launched new paradigms (Kuhn 1962).

   【机器翻译】物理学家将1905年称为阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦的《奇迹之年》。那一年，他发表了四篇论文，改变了人们对宇宙物理定律的理解（Isaacson 2007）。同样，科学历史学家认为艾萨克·牛顿在1666年享受了自己的“奇迹之年”。在这富有成效的一年里，他发展了积分学，实验验证了光的复合性质，并完善了他的引力理论（Palter 1970）。历史学家还指出，1543年是“奇迹年”，当时哥白尼和维萨里通过改变先前对行星运动和人体的理解，发起了科学革命（Gribbin 2004）。Mirabilis、Miraculous或Wonders等词以各种方式表示科学史上的特殊年份。尽管罕见，但这些特殊的年份改变了知识的轨迹和作者的职业生涯。这些最高生产力的成就创造了科学革命，并开创了新的范式（库恩1962）。

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03544-z

参考资料：

[1] John Maddox. How genius can smooth the road to publication [J]. Nature, 2003, 426(6963): 119

doi:  10.1038/426119b

https://www.nature.com/articles/426119b

[2] Anonymous. Coping with peer rejection [J]. Nature, 2003, 425(6959): 645-645

doi:  10.1038/425645a

https://www.nature.com/articles/425645a

[3] 刘进平，2018-05-07，爱因斯坦奇迹年的5篇论文经过同行评议了吗？  精选

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-39731-1112810.html

[4] 施郁，2016-08-01 08:20，爱因斯坦被拒授过博士学位和副教授职位吗？

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-4395-993806.html

[5] The Conversation, 2020-09-21, Hate the peer-review process? Einstein did too

https://www.editage.com/insights/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too?refer=scroll-to-1-article&refer-type=article

[6] Gad Yair, Keith Goldstein. The Annus Mirabilis paper: years of peak productivity in scientific careers [J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 124(2): 887–902

doi:  10.1007/s11192-020-03544-z

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03544-z

相关链接：

[1] 2019-12-21，爱因斯坦“奇迹年”的直接原因：没有“同行评议”

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1210941.html

感谢您的指教！

感谢您指正以上任何错误！

感谢您提供更多的相关资料！