Has anybody here been published in a scientifc journal ?

[rogerharris]

I see no problem in that, if they are valid questions.

Could you rephrase this?

Can i write to another scientist something like

"I have a paper which is under sumbmission to the journal (journal name). Professor *****, the editor has agreed that i should seek to eliminate possible errors from the paper by eliciting professional feedback on points pertaining to your paper which I reference in my own."

What i mean is, am i using the editors name in vain here, or are the instructions the editor sends me confidential ? I remember seeing a case where a problem could occur when one person tries to imply they are affiliated to somebody else, more than is really the case.

 

[Gokul43201]

No!

1. Do not use the editor's name.
2. You should fix whatever errors you think there may be, before submission, not after.
3. Just write the other scientist and ask for whatever clarifications you require. You should not be talking about who or which journal you are submitting to; that is unusual, and comes off as unprofessional.
4. It may be better if your questions reach the receiver from an academic email, so may be better to get your collaborators to send them. A scientist may decide it is not worth his/her time to respond to a johndoe@hotmail.com

 

[Monique]

The correspondence is confidential. If you correspond to another researcher you should state who you are, your interest (that you are performing a meta-analysis), and state why you are interested in their work (that you would like to include their work, but that you need more information).

That you have pre-submitted a manuscript and that the editor has requested information has nothing to do with that.

 

[cristo]

It wasn't bad at all. Vanadium was being honest, and was not insulting you. As a newbie, it might be interesting to read up on the 'medal' system, so you don't automatically assume negative things about members. You can find such information in the library.

mmmnn i sure will be interested to see how a "medal" system can justify that kind of response. Arent there guidelines here for use on language..at all levels ? I mix with scientists, professionals etc. We never hear this kind of language. Its polite and respectful. Scientists are expected to have various combinations of aspergers and obsessive disorders.

What language are you referring to? I don't see any bad language in Vanadium's post. For the record, this is the post I'm talking about:

Hi Roger-

I think you've made a few mistakes already, and they may make this more difficult.

Your first problem is that crackpots send all sorts of stuff to journals. It's the editor's job to keep them from eating up everybody's time, and you really don't want to do anything that would make the editor lump you in with them. You don't want to be lumped in with them.

Your next problem is that your very first paper a) doesn't showcase your own work, as is more typical, and b) is (your words) creating a standard model for neuroscience. It's very, very rare that an amateur's first paper ends up changing the entire paradigm of a field. On the other hand, there are a lot of crackpots claiming to do just that.

The next problem is that you are sending your papers to journals that you don't read. (Choppy's point) If you read these 35 journals religiously, you would know which ones publish what. This also calls into question your thesis that you're integrating other people's work: if you're not reading the literature, how do you know that you're ideas are supported by the data?

Finally, your concern that your ideas will be stolen is something that far more crackpots worry about that scientists. Most scientists want other scientists to use their work. Besides, once a manuscript is received, it's date is noted when the paper is published, so there is no question of precedent.

I don't know if your work is genius or crackpottery - I haven't read it. However, I can say that it shares a number of features with crackpot submissions, and that will almost certainly make the process more difficult.

Calling somebody a "crackpot" would only arise if they persistently listen to nobody, engage in no objective analysis of their own process and ideas, show no humility, do not take in what others have to say, do not test their ideas are unreceptive etc. In other words entire mental process is bad, and mental produce is consistently bad. As you agree that poster Vandadium was being honest in calling me a crackpot then you are basically saying that the above is all true.

I don't see in the above quoted post, anywhere where Vanadium calls you a crackpot. In fact, he is doing the opposite: he is trying to tell you how to adapt so that you are not presumed to be a crackpot. For example, in his second paragraph he says "You don't want to be lumped in with [crackpots]" i.e. you are not one of them!

The important point is that sending emails and submissions in the manner which you did has a ring of a crackpot-- I get those emails all the time! I imagine that you're not one, but that only makes it more important that you don't get grouped as one.. otherwise, you will not be taken seriously.

You won't be able to. I work with psychologists and one new thing that has come up in discussion is that large internet forums often induce a mild version of the "standford prison" effect, a human instinct, which dehumanizes one group against an other. That is longer standing members feel they can do and say whatever they like to newcomers. Like a gang mentality. Its basically an old tribal instinct we all have that occurs. All you need for it to occur is a system of rules with the following three conditions.

1. Anonymity is increased.

2. Moderators are left to apply rules, but not under constant scrutiny by a leader

3. Rule enforcers are not accountable to those they enforce.

I can say with confidence that #2 and 3 do not hold at PF. Greg has a constant presence here, and will question something the moderators do that he doesn't see as just. 'Rule enforcers' can be made accountable by a simple PM to any mentor, or a report of a thread, after which a discussion will ensue.

Its not a good way to run things so i am recommending to make some effort to overcome this. I see you are sponsored by Scientific American, that quite high level. I doubt they would approve of your "medal" system which basically looks like an excuse for adolescent gang mentality.

The medal system absolutely does not do this. It merely acts as guidance, mainly to new members who do not know much about different posters, as to who gives sound advice and has good experience in a field.

I mean get a grip. To use such language. Its hard to believe when all we are discussing here is the dos and donts of getting a paper published. I was told this forum had a good repuation, but you agree with that posters opinion ?

I agree with what Vanadium wrote, because it is not an opinion: it is fact! Again, he merely pointed out common traits of a crackpot, and that some of the things you did mirror these traits. He then advised you to change the way you act in such a situation so as not to come across as a crackpot. Nowhere there are there any insults, or any controversial comments!

I won't read or subscribe to your medal system. Its very disrespectfull to older members. If i am not allowed to post for my opinion on this, then fine.

Of course you are allowed an opinion: everyone is.

 

[rogerharris]

Right of from coming onto this thread some guy directly calls me "a crackpot" I reported him and his post is now been deleted by mods..then not long after somebody else implies it..

to quote

"I don't know if your work is genius or crackpottery - I haven't read it. However, I can say that it shares a number of features with crackpot submissions, and that will almost certainly make the process more difficult."

So this says the the product of my mental processes shares a number of features with crackpots. It is an indirect way of implying the possibility. Yet when you look at the reasons given, they cannot even be concluded based on what i said.

that conclusion was reached by defective analysis.

"Your next problem is that your very first paper a) doesn't showcase your own work, as is more typical, and b) is (your words) creating a standard model for neuroscience. It's very, very rare that an amateur's first paper ends up changing the entire paradigm of a field. On the other hand, there are a lot of crackpots claiming to do just that."

Point A. I didnt say i was not showcasing work. So wrong.

Point B Integrating previously un-integrated work, is not a new paradigm..its simply a review where you say this goes together with this and that and here is more complete model than existed previously. How is this changing the entire paradigm of a field ? That occurs when you disprove previous models and replace them. Making a house from bricks does not replace or invalidate bricks.

"Finally, your concern that your ideas will be stolen is something that far more crackpots worry about that scientists"

Once again it was clear in the post that i stated it was not me that had this anxiety but my co-authors, and i was questioning whether this was true.

So yes i am wondering what is going on. Two people in one thread going on about crackpots mental processes applying to me, one direct and the other indirect, but jumping to the conclusion based on wrong reasoning, then that defective reasoning is agreed with several times.

 

[rogerharris]

No!

1. Do not use the editor's name.
2. You should fix whatever errors you think there may be, before submission, not after.
3. Just write the other scientist and ask for whatever clarifications you require. You should not be talking about who or which journal you are submitting to; that is unusual, and comes off as unprofessional.
4. It may be better if your questions reach the receiver from an academic email, so may be better to get your collaborators to send them. A scientist may decide it is not worth his/her time to respond to a johndoe@hotmail.com

Thank you for this, that is a select compression of quality assistance.

 

[rogerharris]

The correspondence is confidential. If you correspond to another researcher you should state who you are, your interest (that you are performing a meta-analysis), and state why you are interested in their work (that you would like to include their work, but that you need more information).

That you have pre-submitted a manuscript and that the editor has requested information has nothing to do with that.

Ok thank you for this.

I am sorry if i now sound short. Not my usual style. I know there are always people on the internet who want to take cheap shots. I just didnt expect this here in a double dose, and in regards to a thread which is regarding a very positive project.

 

[Gokul43201]

to quote

"I don't know if your work is genius or crackpottery - I haven't read it. However, I can say that it shares a number of features with crackpot submissions, and that will almost certainly make the process more difficult."

So this says the the product of my mental processes shares a number of features with crackpots. It is an indirect way of implying the possibility.

Like it or not, this is the truth, and may very well have been the first thought of about half the editors you wrote to. The procedure you've used is highly unusual, and so it could very easily set off alarm bells with a receiving editor.

It may have served you well this time (we won't know for sure until much later), but you should definitely avoid it in the future.

 

[rogerharris]

I looked at the replies, and it appears my initial summary was wrong.

9 submits and or/non rejections

1 Enthusiastic submit, passed chief editor initial preview.
3 submits based on brief preview.
2 standard submits but it appears that abstract not looked at.
1 submit if I run a computer model.
1 still under review
1 can be submitted if I trim the paper to within their journal scope.

Whats interesting is that only the rejections gave any feedback.

19 rejections (rest not replied or wrong email)

9 replies where 6 editors called it “not suitable” but also “interesting” the rest were “fascinating” “innovative” “good theory”

10 just “not suitable” “outside journal scope” also ““too radical a departure
from current accepted views of cortical function” “Unconventional, try something
easier first”

So is the actual feedback mostly favourable ? I do not have the experience to interpret this. It appears like editors gave a positive opinion when rejecting, but I am thinking they tend towards saying these things out of polite encouragement.

 

[rogerharris]

Like it or not, this is the truth, and may very well have been the first thought of about half the editors you wrote to. The procedure you've used is highly unusual, and so it could very easily set off alarm bells with a receiving editor.

It may have served you well this time (we won't know for sure until much later), but you should definitely avoid it in the future.

I shall be consulting my co-author as to why it was recommended as a valid strategy. He gets his information on strategies from colleages in his university.

 

[rogerharris]

Actually an interesting question has come up from all this use of the idea of "crackpot" submissions..

Do editors preview papers than allow to submit, even if they think its "crackpot" ?

Surely this would create immense workload on reviewers ?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Roger, as many people have mentioned, asking for "pre-approval" from an editor is not the standard way one submits a paper. It's unlikely anyone here will have enough experience to judge the feedback you have received.

Since one normally submits to only one journal, it doesn't matter what a statistical ensemble of editors thinks. Only what the editor of that single journal thinks.

As far as filtering, it's usually done when assigning referees. If the paper is obvious nonsense, it's rejected on the spot rather than wasting referees' time.

 

[Monique]

Roger, as many people have mentioned, asking for "pre-approval" from an editor is not the standard way one submits a paper.

I don't fully agree, there are major journals who encourage a pre-submission enquiry (http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/submissions/presubs/", Current Biology, NEJM). What is not standard is to send it out to a random sample of journals.

As for the opinion of the editor, a pre-submission is a fast screening process. You're asking for a quick opinion, not for a weighted examination. The editor may change his/her opinion when you submit the whole manuscript and ask for an official submission. That's why you should know where you want to publish your paper.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't fully agree, there are major journals who encourage a pre-submission enquiry (http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/submissions/presubs/", Current Biology, NEJM). What is not standard is to send it out to a random sample of journals.

Fair enough. Would you agree that it's difficult to assess the meaning of the response to a pre-submission from those journals that normally don't use this?

 

[Monique]

Fair enough. Would you agree that it's difficult to assess the meaning of the response to a pre-submission from those journals that normally don't use this?

Do you think an editor would even respond to such an enquiry? I wouldn't put too much meaning into such a response anyway. It is good to know whether on first glance they are interested, or whether on first glance they think that it falls into a category that they normally wouldn't accept. I think in general when you submit a paper you do that to a journal that you seem fit, so a pre-submission enquiry wouldn't be required. There are some cases where you may be in doubt, where it can be useful.

 

[rogerharris]

Since one normally submits to only one journal, it doesn't matter what a statistical ensemble of editors thinks. Only what the editor of that single journal thinks.

It gives some indication of what an average pool of people in the field think, that is if they are not just being polite. I have written a neuroscience book along the same lines as the paper, so gauging high level feedback will be usefull for that project.

 

[Monique]

so gauging high level feedback will be usefull for that project.

Yeah, but you are mistaken to think that it is high-level feedback.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, but you are mistaken to think that it is high-level feedback.

So true. The editor(s) of journals are generalists, and their focus is on putting out a well-respected publication. The high-level feedback comes when the paper is referred to specialists in the field (referees) for review, and they make their suggestions/recommendations.

 

[rogerharris]

So true. The editor(s) of journals are generalists, and their focus is on putting out a well-respected publication. The high-level feedback comes when the paper is referred to specialists in the field (referees) for review, and they make their suggestions/recommendations.

I'm glad you brought that up. This is the next problem. I have been asked to pick three referees.

As i mentioned the paper is integrative neuroscience. So is in depth in up to four specialist fields. Primary meta analysis of data for example is in two distinct fields, neurochemistry and EEG research, (a field which has grown in the last decade).

I have been unable to find anybody i reference who could be a referee for both. So this brings up a question.

Does a referee have to be responsible for the entire contents of a paper ? So if i pick somebody good on neurochemistry do they have to responsible for approval on the sections devoted to EEG ?

 

[rogerharris]

I don't fully agree, there are major journals who encourage a pre-submission enquiry (http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/submissions/presubs/", Current Biology, NEJM). What is not standard is to send it out to a random sample of journals.

As for the opinion of the editor, a pre-submission is a fast screening process. You're asking for a quick opinion, not for a weighted examination. The editor may change his/her opinion when you submit the whole manuscript and ask for an official submission. That's why you should know where you want to publish your paper.

I didnt send out to a random selection. I picked 35 out of 500 after looking through about 250 scope and mission sections and any papers that were available in each. As i only have one research day per week now, this task had to be done in a day without athens (medical journal access) login, so i was limited in how to evaluate suitability.

I just asked the two clinicians who recommended i submit to many. The one who was published still agreed to that strategy. Maybe there is a difference in the fields. Medical fields may be different to physics, which many here are published in.

The papers you mention, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine and current biology are medical journals. Medicine and in particular neuroscience are the most complex fields to be in. Alzheimers alone has 40,000 papers. Sometimes scope is hard to define and some journals are flooded with submissions even when the scope is right. Presubmission may be encouraged to save editors time digging out referees and hassling them.

 

[Mapes]

Does a referee have to be responsible for the entire contents of a paper ?

Yes; a referee is responsible for recommending for or against publication. The referee process can't consist of several people looking at the paper in a piecemeal fashion.

 

[rogerharris]

Yes; a referee is responsible for recommending for or against publication. The referee process can't consist of several people looking at the paper in a piecemeal fashion.

As there are seven pages concentrating on neurochemical distributions in high detail, five on EEG, three on dipole/linear quadrupole systems, four on complexity theory. Then the task appears impossible. There is no referee i know who is expert in neurochemical distributions, EEG analysis, multi-pole physics (dipoles, linear quadrupoles) and complexity theory.

I think from the editors tone he likes the papers proposal, but perhaps wants the data which is outwith his scope verified. It appears like my priority for a referee is going to be have to concentrate on finding somebody who can dissect the primary data for flaws. The editor himself appears to be the only person capable of judging the papers integrative proposals, in that this is what his career has been about. It kinds of explains why he was the most friendly in regards to the papers aims.

Is there anybody who has been in the position where they had a paper that integrated several fragmented disciplines and had problems finding a referee who could deal with this ?

This must be more of an issue in physiology, genomics and neuroscience, due to the complexity of the organs, rather than physics which appears to be about drilling down to bare essentials. In complex systems sciences at some stage information has to be re-integrated, and this is outwith the scope of specialists. Perhaps this forum is the wrong place to discuss this.

 

[rogerharris]

In light of my above summary could i ask the posters here, who are published and provided advice what fields they were published in ?

 

[turbo]

In light of my above summary could i ask the posters here, who are published and provided advice what fields they were published in ?

Interacting galaxies, published in "Astrophysics and Space Sciences" - 2nd paper in the works. No idea who the refs were, though I can guess one likely one.

 

[Andy Resnick]

As there are seven pages concentrating on neurochemical distributions in high detail, five on EEG, three on dipole/linear quadrupole systems, four on complexity theory. Then the task appears impossible. There is no referee i know who is expert in neurochemical distributions, EEG analysis, multi-pole physics (dipoles, linear quadrupoles) and complexity theory.
<snip>
Is there anybody who has been in the position where they had a paper that integrated several fragmented disciplines and had problems finding a referee who could deal with this ?
<snip>

I think you underestimate referees. I have never gotten a manuscript or grant application where I have totally 100% understood every single thing in the text, which is impossible anyway- the paper has something new in it, right? Speaking for myself, if I feel I don't have sufficient background information to parse out what the author(s) is saying (a very common occurrence), I make it my responsibility to get educated- as do my colleagues. The authors should supply this "background reading" themselves, by way of the introduction and cited prior work.

One not need be an expert in your laundry list of topics to offer cogent analysis of your manuscript. And in any case, using more than one referee increases the scope of experience. You are neglecting your responsibility to the readers- make your paper intelligible and readable. Writing a paper is not an excersise in showing off how smart you are.

 

[Mapes]

I agree with Andy. You surely believe that at least some of the journal's readers will follow and understand your arguments, be familiar with the topics even if somewhat outside their specialty, and be interested in the conclusions. These are your potential referees. They are in a good position to judge your points. Remember this when they come back with (possibly negative) comments. Since you have written a book in the field, I'm sure you've thought carefully about how to present research conclusions clearly and to the widest possible audience.

Also, you've mentioned that your paper is a review/consolidation of existing studies that argues for a new unified theory. I think your idea that referees can or will question the validity of the original data is way off base. The published studies have been through peer review and have a high degree of believability. Your manuscript has not (yet). The referees will be focusing on your contributions.

 

[Choppy]

Roger, I think you're overshooting the point. It's NOT your responsibility to find referees for your own work. A journal may request that you provide the names of experts, but ultimately the journal (ie. associate editor) is reponsible for finding qualified referees.

If it turns out that the paper fuses together too many different fields, you will likely be asked to re-write it as mulitple papers.

 

[Cincinnatus]

I didn't read this entire thread but I can clear up one more little misconception here. I am in neuroscience (I'm a graduate student) and I can assure you Cerebral Cortex is not a high profile journal. They publish a lot of neuropsychology studies of interest mostly to very focused specialists in that area. For example, they would be an appropriate journal if you had say, developed a new test to screen patients for frontal lobe damage.

Cortex is definitely not the place to publish a paper of interest to a larger segment of the neuroscience community.

 

[Cincinnatus]

As there are seven pages concentrating on neurochemical distributions in high detail, five on EEG, three on dipole/linear quadrupole systems, four on complexity theory. Then the task appears impossible. There is no referee i know who is expert in neurochemical distributions, EEG analysis, multi-pole physics (dipoles, linear quadrupoles) and complexity theory.
.

This is nonsense. Neuroscience is full of people with expertise in all these areas.

 

[rogerharris]

This is nonsense. Neuroscience is full of people with expertise in all these areas.

Thats good news. I couldn't find any in my references and there are 166 in the paper.

If you know any let us know.

 

[rogerharris]

I think you underestimate referees. I have never gotten a manuscript or grant application where I have totally 100% understood every single thing in the text, which is impossible anyway- the paper has something new in it, right? Speaking for myself, if I feel I don't have sufficient background information to parse out what the author(s) is saying (a very common occurrence), I make it my responsibility to get educated- as do my colleagues. The authors should supply this "background reading" themselves, by way of the introduction and cited prior work.

One not need be an expert in your laundry list of topics to offer cogent analysis of your manuscript. And in any case, using more than one referee increases the scope of experience. You are neglecting your responsibility to the readers- make your paper intelligible and readable. Writing a paper is not an excersise in showing off how smart you are.

Good insight.

The readability along with rechecking data are currently the two highest priorities. One co-author is having the facts checked with experts at the university, while the other is ensuring its readable.

 

[rogerharris]

I didn't read this entire thread but I can clear up one more little misconception here. I am in neuroscience (I'm a graduate student) and I can assure you Cerebral Cortex is not a high profile journal. They publish a lot of neuropsychology studies of interest mostly to very focused specialists in that area. For example, they would be an appropriate journal if you had say, developed a new test to screen patients for frontal lobe damage.

Cortex is definitely not the place to publish a paper of interest to a larger segment of the neuroscience community.

Are you mixing up the journal "cortex" and "Cerebral cortex" ? They are different journals.

I ask because this is the scope of the journal "cerebral cortex"

"Cerebral Cortex publishes papers on the development, organization, plasticity, and function of the cerebral cortex, including the hippocampus. Studies with clear relevance to the cerebral cortex, such as the thalamocortical relationship or cortico-subcortical interactions, are also included. The journal is multidisciplinary and covers the large variety of modern neurobiological and neuropsychological techniques, including anatomy, biochemistry, molecular neurobiology, electrophysiology, behavior, artificial intelligence, and theoretical modeling. In addition to research articles, special features such as brief reviews, book reviews, and commentaries are included."

"Cerebral Cortex, like the other high impact journals, has a policy to send for peer review only those manuscripts that are likely to be competitive based on novelty and significant advances in understanding basic neural mechanisms on evolution, development, organization and physiology of cerebral cortex and are also of interest to its multidisciplinary readers."

 

[rogerharris]

I agree with Andy. You surely believe that at least some of the journal's readers will follow and understand your arguments, be familiar with the topics even if somewhat outside their specialty, and be interested in the conclusions. These are your potential referees. They are in a good position to judge your points. Remember this when they come back with (possibly negative) comments. Since you have written a book in the field, I'm sure you've thought carefully about how to present research conclusions clearly and to the widest possible audience.

Also, you've mentioned that your paper is a review/consolidation of existing studies that argues for a new unified theory. I think your idea that referees can or will question the validity of the original data is way off base. The published studies have been through peer review and have a high degree of believability. Your manuscript has not (yet). The referees will be focusing on your contributions.

I don't think they will question the referenced data, i hope... but my meta analysis of that.

although there are six citied papers from India that look dodgy even though they are published in a decent journal. I am seriously condidering removing them from my data. Maybe i could post them here and see what people make of them.

 

[Cincinnatus]

The point is, neither of those journals would be referred to as "high impact".

The first tier journals in neuroscience are Neuron and Nature Neuroscience. After that most people tend to read the Journal of Neurophysiology. A lower status (but still respected) general journal is the Society For Neuroscience's Journal of Neuroscience (why aren't you submitting there? They even have a designated space for integrative neuroscience).

Other than that, there are various specialized journals which typically have lower status. There are also the usual very high impact general science journals e.g. Nature, Science, etc.

---

As for your inability to find references... that does not bode well... You do know that a substantial portion of the systems and theoretical neuroscience communities comes from a physics or computer science background right? Nearly everyone in computational/theoretical neuroscience is familiar with these topics you listed. Probably almost everyone in systems neuroscience would also be suitable. These are thousands of people.

 

[Monique]

I just asked the two clinicians who recommended i submit to many. The one who was published still agreed to that strategy. Maybe there is a difference in the fields. Medical fields may be different to physics, which many here are published in.

Conclusion: you are ignorant to the opinion of the people here. This has really bothered me about your attitude and led me to respond in the first place.

The papers you mention, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine and current biology are medical journals.

That is not correct, only NEJM is a medical journal.

Medicine and in particular neuroscience are the most complex fields to be in. Alzheimers alone has 40,000 papers. Sometimes scope is hard to define and some journals are flooded with submissions even when the scope is right. Presubmission may be encouraged to save editors time digging out referees and hassling them.

You copied the last two sentences from another source? They do not seem to be your own words.

You can suggest reviewers to the editor, or even ask reviewers to be excluded. You would want to suggest reviewers who each have their own strength. The editor will have the final decision on the reviewers and you will not be informed about their identity.