博文
Physical Review A拒稿意见点评
||
-----------------
“We thus planned to make posting peer review documents the next stage in opening up our peer review process, … The final step was, in my mind, to open up the whole process and conduct it in real time on the web in front of the eyes of anybody interested. Peer review would then be transformed from a black box into an open scientific discourse. Often I found the discourse around a study was a lot more interesting than the study itself.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798
J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr; 99(4): 178–182. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178 Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
----------------------
已经有少数期刊沿着这个方向改革学术出版。
但是改革因为触犯一些人的既得利益，阻力也是很大的。
推进改革的主编被要求下台；
编辑集体辞职；
开放期刊版面收入的急剧下降；
威胁将期刊剔除SCI；
...
正在逼退改革尝试。
---------------------
传统期刊评审意见都是不透明的，对于有限的被公开的资源，
我们应该充分分析，
充分利用网上已经公布的资源，从中挖掘有益的信息，
为科学的健康发展提供制定政策的启示。
Physical Review A是有影响的主流刊物，其出版政策直接被其它期刊模仿或效仿。
让我们看看Physical Review A的学术出版理念：
”Dear Dr. Huang,
The above manuscript which you submitted to Physical Review D has been examined by the editors. It is their opinion that, in view of its subject matter, your paper would be more suitable for consideration in Physical Review A.（你提交给物理评论D的手稿已经被编辑审查过，他们认为你的文件更适合物理评论A。）
However, we regret to inform you that the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the Physical Review.（然而，我们遗憾地通知你，这篇手稿不适合刊登在物理评论。）
As a general remark, the special theory of relativity (STR) has survived for a century, despite many challenges based on alleged discrepancies in its application, or on apparent inconsistencies in its accepted interpretation. This historical background makes the highest demands on the clarity and rigor of submitted papers that find faults in STR or seek alternative structures for its basic transformations, if they are to be considered as serious contenders for publication in a scientific journal.In particular, they need to provide unambiguous evidence of failings in the theory and provide clear-cut identifications of past or future measurements that display, or have convincing chances of displaying, shortcomings in STR. Proposals for structural changes in the basic transformations need to show a definite physical impact resulting from novel predictions of observable effects.Authors must justify publication by including a clear discussion of the motivation for the new speculation, with reasons for introducing new concepts. In addition, plausible arguments should be set forth that these predictions and interpretations are experimentally distinguishable from existing knowledge.Adequate references must be made to previous work on the subject, including pertinent parts of the extensive body of experimental evidence which supports the STR. Among such, we should like to call your special attention to the recent article by Pospelov and Romalis, "Lorentz Invariance on Trial," in PHYSICS TODAY, July 2004, p. 40.
Your paper does not satisfy the criteria described above. Therefore, with regret, we cannot consider it for publication in our journal.（你的论文不符合上述标准，因此，我们认为不能在我们的杂志出版。）
Yours sincerely,
Gordon W.F. Drake
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
and
Rashmi Ray
Senior Assistant Editor
Physical Review D
Email: prd@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
显然，他们并没有仔细看我的论文，一看我的论文是质疑相对论的，当天就回信拒稿。估计以前他们也是这样对待质疑相对论的论文。“
====
点评（应该允许批评顶刊）：
这里不评论狭义相对论的对错。仅就期刊理念发表评论。
"This historical background makes the highest demands on the clarity and rigor of submitted papers that find faults in STR or seek alternative structures for its basic transformations, if they are to be considered as serious contenders for publication in a scientific journal. ... Adequate references must be made to previous work on the subject, including pertinent parts of the extensive body of experimental evidence which supports the STR. "
不能把权威期刊做法和理念捧为至宝。
要求作者详尽的引用历史文献，这种要求在文科学术期刊尤为突出，表现为学术期刊的学术游戏化规则。
首先，如果文章的主题不是综述，这种 要求几乎就是无理要求。
文章只要有一个驳不倒的创新点，就不应该用全面的文献历史要求去扼杀。
第二，为什么不允许交叉领域的作者在他所不熟悉的领域搞出创新，
这样的作者可能只是有产生灵感的创新，而对该领域的文献并不熟悉，
这种文献要求就是用无理的学术游戏的规则扼杀创新观点的发表。
有的期刊甚至要求不同数据库的文献都有相当比例的引用，完全学术游戏化的要求。
“they need to provide unambiguous evidence of failings in the theory and provide clear-cut identifications of past or future measurements that display, or have convincing chances of displaying, shortcomings in STR. Proposals for structural changes in the basic transformations need to show a definite physical impact resulting from novel predictions of observable effects.Authors must justify publication by including a clear discussion of the motivation for the new speculation, with reasons for introducing new concepts. In addition, plausible arguments should be set forth that these predictions and interpretations are experimentally distinguishable from existing knowledge.”
一篇创新投稿的稿件，作者一定有其深入的点。
这一段拒稿意见的实质是只有你有足够充分的理由才能推翻一个主流理论。
这样的标准很难用一篇文章完成，实际上只要稿件的论证详实，就有发表的价值。
你需要准许反对理论的证据逐渐积累。
======
主流理论自然有相当多的实验文章支持，
很多人以为支持的实验文章多，就是证据充分。
很多人提倡实验的重现性，反复重复发表垃圾结果，
对于颠覆性创新稿件则求全责备，
但是需要注意的是：
每做一次实验观测，都是太阳围绕地球转，
这样的实验观测重复多少次，也得不到日心理论。
主流理论如地心理论自然已经有很多发表的实验支持文章，
但是以这个实验证据的数量标准作为文章是否可以发表的标准，首篇颠覆性创新根本无法发表出来。
学术期刊最首要的是核查稿件是否有创新点，具体分析文章的论证是否站得住脚。
=====
作为稿件评审意见，上述Physical Review A专业期刊这样笼统地给出评审意见，是极其不专业的官话。
但是这种不针对稿件论证的拒稿在现代期刊同行评审中非常常见。
你需要具体指出文章哪些论证是不充分的、为什么不充分。
难怪作者说：
“显然，他们并没有仔细看我的论文，一看我的论文是质疑相对论的，当天就回信拒稿。估计以前他们也是这样对待质疑相对论的论文。”
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1463398.html
上一篇：对少数派观点的包容，是人类文明的标志
下一篇：Physical Review A拒稿意见点评（2）
