yueliusd07017的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/yueliusd07017

博文

文章发表后,不允许别人评论,还有什么资格叫同行评审期刊

已有 233 次阅读 2024-8-15 22:34 |个人分类:微波吸收|系统分类:科研笔记

1 什么是真正的同行评审

什么是真正的同行评审,真正的同行评审发生在文章发表之后。

文章发表后,不让别人评论,还有什么资格叫同行评审期刊。

现在的期刊同行评审,是随机找几个人做评审,显然是伪同行评审。

然而

科学界普遍认为同行评审期刊才是可以信赖的,非同行评审期刊的文章都是不可靠的。

所以所有期刊都标榜自己的刊物是严格的同行评审期刊。

现代科学界的这种错误的逻辑不知到时什么时候建立的。

科学网—现行微波吸收理论的AI智能回答,回答的很到位

实践反复证明:期刊同行评审很难发现文章中的低级错误,但是能高效阻止新思想的传播(给出最新实例)

期刊同行评审:发现稿件错误很低效,不让颠覆性创新正确稿件发表效率很高

现代所有主流期刊都不愿意有人评论自己刊物的文章中的错误,

这样的期刊宗旨,有什么资格称自己是严格的同行评审期刊。

科学就是质疑;你好,我好,大家都好就不会有科学 

Vazire, S., 2020. A toast to the error detectors. Nature. 577, 9.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2

为期刊文献纠错鼓与呼

===========================

Recognizing Problems in Publications Concerned with Microwave Absorption Film and Providing 

Corrections: A Focused Review - Article (Preprint v2) by Yue Liu et al. | Qeios

2024年06月26日 01:47 (星期三)

Ms. Ref. No.: CARBON-D-24-02099

Title: Recognizing problems in publications concerned with microwave absorption film and providing corrections – A focused review

Carbon

Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you for your submission to Carbon. Our Editorial Team screens all new manuscripts for importance, novelty, fit to the journal, presentation quality, and the expected level of interest among our readership in the international carbon materials community.  Based on this screening, only a fraction of submissions is sent out for the full peer review process. Unfortunately, we have decided not to continue the reviewing process at this time.

I would also like to emphasize that Carbon receives about 6,000 manuscripts per year and rejects about 80% of the submitted manuscripts. If the manuscript falls short, like in this case, we respectfully ask the authors to submit elsewhere. I would like to emphasize that by taking such a decision, I want to save time on your side since the reviewing process is very strict and extremely tough, and only extremely original papers are accepted with minor revisions.

Please also consider that an appeal of this decision might result in a lengthy and time-consuming editorial process, which in most cases does not revert the editorial decision. The journal will not operate if we consider all appeals for revisions. We thank you for letting us consider your work, and we hope you will submit the best of your future manuscripts to Carbon.

编辑的逻辑:

错误文章比纠错文章更有发表的价值。

===============

Comments on: “A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption 

mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing” by Hou et al. [Carbon 222 (2024) 118935] 

Article (Preprint v1) by Yue Liu et al. | Qeios

2024年05月09日 07:08 (星期四)

Ms. Ref. No.: CARBON-D-24-01526

Title: Comments on: “A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing” by Hou et al. [Carbon 222 (2024) 118935]

Carbon

Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you for your submission to Carbon. Our Editorial Team screens all new manuscripts for importance, novelty, fit to the journal, presentation quality, and the expected level of interest among our readership in the international carbon materials community.  Based on this screening, only a fraction of submissions is sent out for the full peer review process. Unfortunately, we have decided not to continue the reviewing process at this time.

There is a series of papers listed that seem to advocate similar ‘corrections’ in other journals outlined in their letter to the editors.  Here the attention seems to be on a single paper by Hou et al.  As stated in the abstract 'This is a comment on the problems of the paper by Hou et al., which are related to wrong theories dominated in current research of microwave absorption’.  This paper is referenced as [46] (one might logically assume it should be [1]).  This seems to be a general research paper focussed on the general theory.  It currently does not conform to the format of a letter.  It would be advisable to write a review’ or ‘research’ paper in the general context as the link to Hou et al.’s paper seems simply a link to advocate the position in the other papers listed in the cover letter.  One also wonders whether the authors have communicated with Hou if the ‘correction’ is solely related to their paper or the wider collection of papers within the journal.

I would also like to emphasize that Carbon receives about 6,000 manuscripts per year and rejects about 80% of the submitted manuscripts. If the manuscript falls short, like in this case, we respectfully ask the authors to submit elsewhere. I would like to emphasize that by taking such a decision, I want to save time on your side since the reviewing process is very strict and extremely tough, and only extremely original papers are accepted with minor revisions.

Please also consider that an appeal of this decision might result in a lengthy and time-consuming editorial process, which in most cases does not revert the editorial decision. The journal will not operate if we consider all appeals for revisions. We thank you for letting us consider your work, and we hope you will submit the best of your future manuscripts to Carbon.

===========================

期刊撤稿,实际上是期刊没有办法的办法,

只要还有一点办法,期刊是不愿意将自己刊物的文章撤稿的。

------------

学术期刊不是教材,不是科普刊物,

学术期刊面向的不是不懂科学的普通大众,

学术期刊面向的是有鉴别能力的科学家,

科学自身有清洁功能,科学不怕误导,

学术期刊存在的真正意义在于传播新思想,而不特别在意这种新思想是不是正确。

2 两篇评论文章

https://doi.org/10.32388/9P8Q56

Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Drew MGB,  

[Commentary] Comments on: “A perspective on impedance matching 

and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing”

 by Hou et al. [Carbon 222 (2024) 118935]

Qeios2024Supplementary 

https://doi.org/10.32388/9P8Q56.2

Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew,  Review:  

Recognizing Problems in Publications Concerned with Microwave Absorption Film 

and Providing Corrections: A Focused Review

Qeios, preprin,  2024-07-01, Supplementary data

3 被评论文章

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2024.118935

A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing - ScienceDirect

CarbonVolume 222, 25 March 2024, 118935

image.png

56.pdf

56.pdf

4 文献笔记

下面文献笔记的高亮标注处都是(3 被评论文章)有问题的地方,

是第2节(2 两篇评论文章)评论文章主要评论的地方。

---------------------

一篇文章有这么多有问题的地方(高亮的地方),那这篇文章的主要结论还可靠吗?

这样的文章有理由不允许评论吗?

=====

但是被评论文章被认为是重要创新文章被发表了,

评论文章则被审稿人和编辑共同认为:讨论的问题太简单、创新度不够、重要性不够,不能发表

共识的一定是合理的吗?

大多数人的观点一定是合理的吗?

科学是可以用投票解决问题的吗?

科学需要通过证据讲话,而不是通过立场讲话。

--------------------

编辑和审稿人评语的共同特点:

编辑和审稿人的拒稿意见不是具体批驳评论文章的主要论证而给稿评语,

即审稿意见没有指出评论文章的个评论错了,哪个评论为什么不重要,

审稿意见也没有指出而被评论文章为什么重要,评论文章为什么不对。

------------

错了就得让别人评论,

除非你能证明人家的评论是错误的,被评论的文章没有错。

文章发表后,不允许别人评论,还有什么资格叫同行评审期刊。

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png



https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1446709.html

上一篇:实践反复证明:期刊同行评审很难发现文章中的低级错误,但是能高效阻止新思想的传播(给出最新实例)
收藏 IP: 39.152.24.*| 热度|

3 王涛 宁利中 杨正瓴

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-8-16 02:20

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部