From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 10:36:00 2014 From: "Victor Rosas Garcia rosas.victor _ gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50029-140505081852-27285-rwbWIatBll1nH9WbQnS8bA]_[server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Victor Rosas Garcia Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3923e6e7a8204f8a62093 Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 07:18:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Victor Rosas Garcia [rosas.victor[-]gmail.com] --001a11c3923e6e7a8204f8a62093 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To extend on what Robert Molt said, I may be another village idiot, as I have never identified any of the reviewers to my papers either. Really, I couldn't care less about the identity of a reviewer, all I care is the quality of the review. Once it happened that one of my papers was rejected because of "poor quality" and "missing to cite" such-and-such "important paper". The "important paper" in question was actually part of the list of references! I understood that the reviewer had done a shoddy work, and I resubmitted to another journal. The paper got accepted by a journal with a better impact factor (FWIW) than the first one who rejected it. On other occasions, reviews that led to rejection have actually been helpful in improving the quality of the paper. Perhaps in these cases I would like to know the identity of the reviewers, so I could thank them personally. In such cases, I have always expressed my appreciation to the editor. Going back to the original message, I do think that taking two months to find out that a paper is not within the scope of a journal is a little too long, after all, it is the editor who defines the scope of the journal. The editor should be able to see if a given paper fits the journal right away. It happened to me once: I got a paper rejected by the editor the following day after my submission, stating that it was not within the scope of the journal. But I also think that the current system could be improved by double-blinding. When I was a grad student I saw it happen: a professor decided to grade the final term papers in a graduate level class only by looking at the contents, identifying the papers by codes, not the students's names (the code-name key was in sealed envelopes provided by each student, I think). Not only the professor, but a lot of people got surprised at the resulting grades, as some "great" students failed and some "so-and-so" students got top grades. Just my two cents. Victor 2014-05-04 18:25 GMT-05:00 Robert Molt r.molt.chemical.physics[-]gmail.com = < owner-chemistry(!)ccl.net>: > I find it absurd how many people are claiming how "obvious" it is to > identify reviewers/authors of papers. Empirically, this is not true. Th= e > people claiming how obvious this is apparently have forgotten what it is > like to be a newer scientist in the field, and not have decades of > experience to have met "everyone" and know the writing styles of "everyon= e" > while they are just a graduate student writing papers. > > Perhaps I am just the village idiot, but I've not been able to identify > the reviewers of my 7 papers. > > Regardless, the "obviousness" of identities does not have any logical > bearing on the question proposed: why show the names of paper's authors? > If the anonymity of the reviewers is precious (reasonable), why is the > anonymity of the submitters any less precious? > > Of course I take any paper written by Dr. Bartlett or Dr. Cramer more > seriously...they are great scientists. Of course I will be biased in the= ir > favor, whereas the exact same publication from some loser named Robert Mo= lt > would require a greater hurdle. > > Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.r.molt.chemical.physics,,gmail.com > Nigel Richards Research Group > Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology > Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis > LD 326 > 402 N. Blackford St. > Indianapolis, IN 46202 > > On 5/4/14 1:14 PM, Jack Miller jmiller * brocku.ca wrote: > > I am a retired chemist and VP Research, still tying up loose end of 40+ > years of lab results. My wife is retired dramatic arts Prof, Some of her > papers too over a year to get the reviews back, which is also the case is > disciplines such as Math and Computer Science. > > My wife used to get manuscripts to review with the author's name > suppressed - it being a relatively small field, and in almost all cases s= he > could identify the author, and for reviews of her own papers, books and > grant applications she was almost always sure who the anonymous referees > were. > > In chemistry I could very often identify the referees for my nearly 200 > papers. If the authors were anonymous they would still be identifiable by > the references or the instrumentation used or as one of my mentors used s= ay > he could identify the referee who was still making the same grammar > mistakes made in their thesis. > > What we have works - don't reinvent the wheel. > > > > Prof. Jack Miller > Special Advisor on Buildings & Space, > Emeritus Professor of Chemistry > Brock University. > > Jmiller^-^brocku.ca > Sent from my iPad > > On May 4, 2014, at 4:33 AM, "Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com" < > owner-chemistry^-^ccl.net> wrote: > > I vote for the "triple-blind" review: Nobody knows the reviewers, the > authors, or the editors! > > On 5/3/2014 3:11 PM, Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat wrote: > > I just wanted to add that highly high-profile journals like Angewandte, > Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in research, > but I would doubt seriously that this would make them incompetent. > > Like Michel said, two months is nothing, it is not unusual to have a > period of between 2 months and one year between first submission > and final acceptance. It reminds me of an Editorial I=E2=80=99ve recently= read, > about how to write a paper and how to deal with the reviewing process. > See: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cm501152b > > Good luck with the paper! > > Marcel > > On 2014-05-03, at 09:13, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com < > owner-chemistry---ccl.net> wrote: > > Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result > in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my case > two > months. Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be > active in research at all, something which is completely unheard of for a > high- > profile journal. > > ---------- > Demetra Dimetrodon > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart > > ICREA Research Professor at > Institut de Qu=C3=ADmica Computacional i Cat=C3=A0lisi > Universitat de Girona > > Facultat de Ci=C3=A8ncies > Campus Montilivi > 17071 Girona > Catalunya (Spain) > > tel > +34-972-418861 > fax > +34-972-418356 > e-mail > marcel.swart---icrea.cat > marcel.swart---udg.edu > web > http://www.marcelswart.eu > vCard > addressbook://www.marcelswart.eu/MSwart.vcf > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > > > > > -- > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ..........Sebastian Kozuch........... > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ......University of North Texas...... > ..........Denton, Texas, USA......... > ........ seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com .......http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/kozuch= .htm > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > --001a11c3923e6e7a8204f8a62093 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To extend on what Robert Molt said, I = may be another village idiot, as I have never identified any of the reviewe= rs to my papers either. Really, I couldn't care less about the identity= of a reviewer, all I care is the quality of the review. Once it happened t= hat one of my papers was rejected because of "poor quality" and &= quot;missing to cite" such-and-such "important paper". The &= quot;important paper" in question was actually part of the list of ref= erences! I understood that the reviewer had done a shoddy work, and I resub= mitted to another journal. The paper got accepted by a journal with a bette= r impact factor (FWIW) than the first one who rejected it.

On other occasions, reviews that led to rejection have actually b= een helpful in improving the quality of the paper.=C2=A0 Perhaps in these c= ases I would like to know the identity of the reviewers, so I could thank t= hem personally. In such cases, I have always expressed my appreciation to t= he editor.

Going back to the original message, I do think that taking two mo= nths to find out that a paper is not within the scope of a journal is a lit= tle too long, after all, it is the editor who defines the scope of the jour= nal. The editor should be able to see if a given paper fits the journal rig= ht away.=C2=A0 It happened to me once: I got a paper rejected by the editor= the following day after my submission, stating that it was not within the = scope of the journal.

But I also think that the current system could be improved by dou= ble-blinding.=C2=A0 When I was a grad student I saw it happen: a professor = decided to grade the final term papers in a graduate level class only by lo= oking at the contents, identifying the papers by codes, not the students= 9;s names (the code-name key was in sealed envelopes provided by each stude= nt, I think).=C2=A0 Not only the professor, but a lot of people got surpris= ed at the resulting grades, as some "great" students failed and s= ome "so-and-so" students got top grades.


Just my two cents.

Victor


2014-05-04 18:25 GMT-= 05:00 Robert Molt r.molt.chemical.physics[-]gm= ail.com <owner-chemistry(!)ccl.net>:
=20 =20 =20
I find it absurd how many people are claiming how "obvious" it is to identify reviewers/authors = of papers.=C2=A0 Empirically, this is not true.=C2=A0 The people claimin= g how obvious this is apparently have forgotten what it is like to be a newer scientist in the field, and not have decades of experience to have met "everyone" and know the writing styles of "= ;everyone" while they are just a graduate student writing papers.

Perhaps I am just the village idiot, but I've not been able to identify the reviewers of my 7 papers.

Regardless, the "obviousness" of identities does not have a= ny logical bearing on the question proposed: why show the names of paper's authors?=C2=A0 If the anonymity of the reviewers is preci= ous (reasonable), why is the anonymity of the submitters any less precious?

Of course I take any paper written by Dr. Bartlett or Dr. Cramer more seriously...they are great scientists.=C2=A0 Of course I will be biased in their favor, whereas the exact same publication from some loser named Robert Molt would require a greater hurdle.
Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.
r.m=
olt.chemical.physics,,gmail.com
Nigel Richards Research Group
Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
LD 326
402 N. Blackford St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
On 5/4/14 1:14 PM, Jack Miller jmiller * brocku.ca wrote:
=20
I am a retired chemist and VP Research, still tying up loose end of 40+ years of lab results. My wife is =C2=A0retired dramatic arts Prof, Some of her papers too over a year to get the reviews back, which is also the case is disciplines such as Math and Computer Science.=C2=A0

My wife used to get manuscripts to review with the author's name suppressed - it being a relatively small field, and in almost all cases she could identify the author, and for reviews of her own papers, books and grant applications she was almost always sure who the anonymous referees were.=C2=A0

In chemistry I could very often =C2=A0identify the referees for = my nearly 200 papers. If the authors were anonymous they would still be identifiable by the references or the instrumentation used or as one of my mentors used say he could identify the referee who was still making the same grammar mistakes made in their thesis.

What we have works - don't reinvent the wheel.



Prof. Jack Miller
Special Advisor on Buildings & Space,
Emeritus Professor of Chemistry
Brock University.

Sent from my iPad

On May 4, 2014, at 4:33 AM, "Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com" <owner-chemistry^-^ccl.net> wrote:

I vote for the "triple-blind" review: Nobody knows the reviewers, the authors, or the editors!

On 5/3/2014 3:11 PM, Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat wrote:
I just wanted to add that highly high-profile journals like Angewandte,
Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in research,
but I would doubt seriously that this would make them incompetent.

Like Michel said, two months is nothing, it is not unusual to have a
period of between 2 months and one year between first submission
and final acceptance. It reminds me of an Editorial I=E2=80=99ve recently read,
about how to write a paper and how to deal with the reviewing process.

Good luck with the paper!

Marcel


Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result=C2=A0
in a h= uge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my case two=C2=A0
months= . Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be=C2= =A0
active= in research at all, something which is completely unheard of for a high-
profil= e journal.

------= ----
Demetr= a Dimetrodon


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart

ICREA Research Professor at
Institut de Qu=C3=ADmica Computacional i Cat=C3=A0lisi<= br> Universitat de Girona

Facultat de Ci=C3=A8ncies
Campus Montilivi
17071 Girona
Catalunya (Spain)

tel
+34-972-418861
fax
+34-972-418356
e-mail
marcel.swart---icrea.cat
marcel.swart---udg.edu
web
http://www.marcelswart.eu
vCard
addressbook://www.marcelswart.eu/MSwart.vcf
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 







--=20
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..........Sebastian Kozuch...........
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
......University of North Texas......
..........Denton, Texas, USA.........
........ seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com .......
http://=
yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/kozuch.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--001a11c3923e6e7a8204f8a62093--