Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Robin,
I did not in fact attempt to contact the original author as I did not feel that this was the appropriate way to comment on his paper (see my earlier posts!). However, discussion with the original author could indeed a viable option within a somewhat looser commenting structure, but does require that he/she is contactable at the same address after maybe over a year, is willing to engage in discussion, and is amenable to publishing a correction should this become necessary. Assuming all this is possible, direct contact is perhaps on a par with discussion in the Forum, lacking the wider view of other members but (hopefully) gaining from the author’s insights. A combination of the two is perhaps the best solution if actual publishing is not to be used but does, as you say, risk a protracted discussion.
Indeed, direct contact is what I felt the inadequate responses I had received from the Editor forced me to do when I wished to comment on a later JBAA paper by Jean Meeus. My remarks were met with Jean’s usual courtesy, and he graciously agreed that some phrases he used could have been worded slightly differently to make his points more accurately. However, it is most unlikely that he would be keen to publish these minor corrections himself and of course if I were to do so my contribution would have to surmount the hurdle of being “of interest to the Editor”. While this is of no great import in this particular case, if a significant deficiency was identified in a paper but was unable to be fed back into print then the consequences could be more serious.
I therefore feel (and it seems you do too) that, whatever the means used to facilitate the discussion, there is a need for a mechanism by which comments on papers (whether by the original author or not) can be freely published in the Journal. If not in the Letters section, then where? I was certainly not suggesting that ArXiv be used, as that would throw up all sorts of problems of its own, but maybe the Journal should permit of a contribution which is part-way between a Paper and a Letter? i.e. something which is only lightly refereed, maybe just by the Papers Editor (allowing it to be quickly published), and does not have to fulfil any particular “interest” criteria – its interest being inherent in the fact that it is a comment or correction on an already-published paper.
Are we heading in the right direction here, do you think?
Regards,
Steve
Hi Robin,
While I would agree with you that the submission of a further paper would be the correct (and usual) course of action if one wanted to publicise an alternative theory, the most obvious problem here is one of time-delay. It is not unusual for there to be an interval of a year between the submission of a paper to the JBAA and its publication, by which time most readers will have forgotten what the original paper was about anyway! I can’t say whether this is typical of other learned Journals, but even in their case the adoption of “pre-publication” revelation has proved a necessary part of the review process – the “arXiv” server being the prime example. While a delay of this magnitude might be acceptable for theories involving fundamental issues, I do think a faster process is needed for the sort of papers published in the JBAA. Bi-monthly Letters are certainly not perfect in this respect, but they are definitely better than annual papers!
The above of course assumes that one wishes to put forward an alternative theory, rather than simply comment on certain aspects of the original paper (as I was). These comments may not invalidate the original conclusions, but need to be addressed before a fully-robust position can be reached. In this case, a formal paper is almost certainly inappropriate and so the responder needs a means of putting his or her ideas forward in a different way. Currently, the Letters section is the only vehicle available for this and so it must be made clear whether such submissions are (or are not) acceptable as Letters – and if they are not, how they are to be published must also be made clear.
Discussion via the BAA Forum can, as you say, help to clarify ideas (assuming this is required). However, it suffers not only from the problems alluded to in my previous post, but (like any forum) can also result in “off-topic” comments and somewhat random trains of thought. It will also only reach those who are dedicated “Forum watchers” whereas a published comment will place itself before the eyes of the entire membership – few may read it, but at least it will clearly announce its presence. Furthermore, even if the Forum reaches a consensus conclusion on the ideas being put forward, how is this to be reflected back into the JBAA as a counter to the original article? Presumably as a Letter, at which point the discussion might well start all over again!
Regards,
Steve
In answer to Robin’s question, “No, I don’t”. One has to be careful to distinguish between a comment (i.e. a response to the paper) and the groundrules defining how the comment can be made. The issues I am raising refer to the groundrules – once these are defined one can then move on to formulating the comments themselves.
There would appear to be a sub-text inherent in Robin’s remark however – that the Forum would be a better place to discuss papers than the Journal. In this I would fundamentally disagree with him. The protocol for writing, submitting, refereeing and reviewing “learned papers” is well-established throughout the scientific community, and proceeds by the open publication of the paper and its comments in the relevant Journal. By doing so, a reader of the original paper can readily access all parts of any subsequent discussion, and the final conclusion, and thus be sure that the information given in the paper is accurate and reliable (or not, as the case may be). A Forum discussion, on the other hand, is a transitory thing with no firm link to the original paper and so a later reader may not be aware that a discussion has even occurred, let alone what the final judgement on the paper was. It must also be born in mind that the reader may not be a member of the BAA and so even if they think to consult the Forum they probably will not be able to join in the discussion, as this requires a log-on to be established. The only way in which the Forum scores over formal publication is “turn-round time”, but even so this may not be an actual advantage as knowing that there will be a delay before your response is published should encourage a contributor to do the research and carefully think through their submission rather than just bash off a quick reply.
Regards,
Steve
Dear Jeremy,
I of course realise that not all Letters can be published – it’s the way those to be published and those to be rejected are decided that I am questioning.
My first point was that surely the interests of the membership should be a deciding factor, not those of the Editor – this can lead to rejection for purely arbitrary reasons.
Secondly, I would have thought that a comment on a published JBAA paper deserves to be seen by the membership, in order to justify the Journal’s (presumed) desire to see itself as a peer-reviewed vehicle. If the comment turns out to be fallacious or mis-construed, then it is up to the membership to say so by means of a further contribution. That is what peer-review is all about!
And lastly, why could I (and presumably other contributors) not have been given more information about the reason for rejection? If one doesn’t know why a contribution has been rejected how can one ever submit with confidence? Is not the Editor supposed to encourage and advise contributors rather than frustrate them?
Best regards,
Steve
