Question for Apollo20

[Golden Bear]

I was just wondering if you could provide an update on the progress your paper has made in the peer review process at Journal of Engineering Mechanics. The paper in question is here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p... did & Did Not Cause It - Revised 6-22-07.pdf

If you have already received comments back from any peer reviewers, I would very much appreciate it if you could post them here (that is, as long as publicly disclosing peer review comments is not in violation of any ASCE guidelines or policies).

I searched the online ASCE publications database and didn't see any indication that it has actually been published, so I was just curious about its status.

Also, I notice in the current version available at the above link that the cover page has been altered from prior versions. In prior versions the paper stated that it had been submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics on May 27, 2007. Now it says that it was revised on June 22 and December 15, 2007. Is there any way you could share what portions of the paper were revised on these dates and the reasons for the revisions? Were they in response to peer review comments? I skimmed the paper and didn't see any errata, so again I am just curious about these revisions.

 

[Apollo20]

Golden Bear:

I really can't say too much about the paper by Bazant, Greening et al. other than (believe it or not), it's still being reviewed. I could add more but I do not wish to reveal confidential information I received a few weeks ago from Prof. Bazant on the status of our paper. I am sure you understand!

 

[Max Photon]

Golden Bear:

I really can't say too much about the paper by Bazant, Greening et al. other than (believe it or not), it's still being reviewed.

Maybe they got the little note I sent.

 

[Golden Bear]

Golden Bear:

I really can't say too much about the paper by Bazant, Greening et al. other than (believe it or not), it's still being reviewed. I could add more but I do not wish to reveal confidential information I received a few weeks ago from Prof. Bazant on the status of our paper. I am sure you understand!

So, are you saying you can't share what revisions were made to the paper on the dates indicated on the cover page? Nor can you share why said revisions were made?

I'm afraid I don't understand why this information can't be revealed. Like I said, I can see why you wouldn't want to share the peer review comments on the paper if doing so would violate ASCE policy, but it seems strange that you would not want to divulge exactly what revisions were made on those dates.

Can you cite to an ASCE policy or guideline that you would be in violation of if you were to post the peer review comments here? If not, it seems that you don't want any official criticisms of your paper published. Why would that be?

 

[Max Photon]

Sometimes the simplest words are the hardest to say.










Max Mihop

 

[jhunter1163]

If there is one thing that is apparent about Dr. Greening from his posting history, it is that he does not shrink from criticism. I am sure that full disclosure will be made in due course.

 

[afinemadness]

Golden Bear before you worry about grammatical changes to Apollo20's paper maybe you should address this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102153

 

[alexg]

Golden Bear before you worry about grammatical changes to Apollo20's paper maybe you should address this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102153

Cue the crickets.

 

[Golden Bear]

Cue the crickets.

I didn't come here to engage in a pointless argument with Gravy. I've got much better things to do with my time.

I am curious about this paper, though, and why it's taken so long get through peer review. I'm also curious about why Dr. Greening and/or his co-authors want to keep the peer review comments and revisions in response thereto, if any, so secret. If they can cite to an ASCE policy or guideline for keeping it secret, I'll be the first to say their actions are completely justified. But, if not, this is a very important topic and should be examined in the light of day.

To the person that said the revisions might be typographical in nature, surely if that were the case the authors wouldn't be reticent to disclose that fact, no? There's nothing shameful in correcting typographical errors, and indeed I would be very interested to find out that typographical revisions were the only revisions made.

 

[The Almond]

I didn't come here to engage in a pointless argument with Gravy. I've got much better things to do with my time.

I am curious about this paper, though, and why it's taken so long get through peer review. I'm also curious about why Dr. Greening and/or his co-authors want to keep the peer review comments and revisions in response thereto, if any, so secret. If they can cite to an ASCE policy or guideline for keeping it secret, I'll be the first to say their actions are completely justified. But, if not, this is a very important topic and should be examined in the light of day.

To the person that said the revisions might be typographical in nature, surely if that were the case the authors wouldn't be reticent to disclose that fact, no? There's nothing shameful in correcting typographical errors, and indeed I would be very interested to find out that typographical revisions were the only revisions made.

While I don't wish to speak unduly for Dr. Greening, in my own publishing experience, I don't share the comments of my reviewers with anyone. I consider them to be personal, and as such, I expect that my publishers and reviewers will not publish or disseminate that information without my consent. This is standard practice in the academic and scientific community.

 

[Apollo20]

Golden Bear:

I personally don't care if the whole world eventually sees the reviewers comments, but I am just one author, and NOT the principal author. If you want to try contacting Bazant, no one is stopping you. However, the way I see it, the paper is still being reviewed, so now is NOT the time to present this type of information on a public forum in the same way that a jury does not discuss a case until the trial is over.

 

[Golden Bear]

While I don't wish to speak unduly for Dr. Greening, in my own publishing experience, I don't share the comments of my reviewers with anyone. I consider them to be personal, and as such, I expect that my publishers and reviewers will not publish or disseminate that information without my consent. This is standard practice in the academic and scientific community.

I actually rather like the movement towards open peer review and hope it continues.

Aside from that, I don't think anyone would much care about peer review comments on a new method of measuring concrete shear strength, or some other esoteric and highly specialized inquiry that is typically published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. OTOH, here Dr. Greening et al. are dealing with a topic that carries with it major public policy implications. Therefore, I would equate this more closely with an official report, such as the official NIST report on the collapses, in which public comments on drafts are published for all to see. Yes, I know this paper isn't an official government report. However, it is discussing a topic that is very important to public policy, and I think there is a strong public interest in seeing the comments of the peer reviewers in this specific case.

I'm sure you disagree, and that's fine. By the way, has anyone ever asked you for a look at the peer review comments you received for a paper? If so, did you deny them? If so, why?

Also, how would you feel about a peer reviewer publishing her comments about a paper, but only after the paper under review was published in the Journal over the protest of the peer reviewer?

 

[Golden Bear]

Golden Bear:

I personally don't care if the whole world eventually sees the reviewers comments, but I am just one author, and NOT the principal author. If you want to try contacting Bazant, no one is stopping you. However, the way I see it, the paper is still being reviewed, so now is NOT the time to present this type of information on a public forum in the same way that a jury does not discuss a case until the trial is over.

Fair enough. I'm still a bit confused as to your (or your co-authors') justification for listing revision dates on the cover page, but nowhere actually identifying what revisions were made. Perhaps I will try and contact Bazant on this issue, as it appears he's the one driving the bus.

 

[Brainache]

So Golden Bear, you sound like you know a lot about the process, have you published any papers on this subject that us interested lay people might read?

I'm just curious.

 

[The Almond]

I actually rather like the movement towards open peer review and hope it continues.

I've heard no such rumor in any of the conferences I've attended. I don't think any legitimate scientific journal would ever publish or disseminate peer comments, and I would hope that the majority of scientists and engineers would have the professionalism not to publish any papers before the review process was completed.

Aside from that, I don't think anyone would much care about peer review comments on a new method of measuring concrete shear strength, or some other esoteric and highly specialized inquiry that is typically published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. OTOH, here Dr. Greening et al. are dealing with a topic that carries with it major public policy implications. Therefore, I would equate this more closely with an official report, such as the official NIST report on the collapses, in which public comments on drafts are published for all to see. Yes, I know this paper isn't an official government report. However, it is discussing a topic that is very important to public policy, and I think there is a strong public interest in seeing the comments of the peer reviewers in this specific case.

The fact that JoEM is a privately owned journal invalidates your argument. It does not matter if the subject is of national interest, the comments and nature of the peer review process are the possessions of the reviewers, authors and publishers, and not anyone else.

I'm sure you disagree, and that's fine. By the way, has anyone ever asked you for a look at the peer review comments you received for a paper?

Never. I don't even allow my reviewers to see the comments that other reviewers have written. My current employer requires no fewer than 5 separate people to review my paper before I can send it off for review at a journal.

If so, did you deny them? If so, why?

I absolutely would deny anyone the freedom to review the comments of other reviewers. I do so because their comments are a matter of personal correspondence between myself and them.

Also, how would you feel about a peer reviewer publishing her comments about a paper, but only after the paper under review was published in the Journal over the protest of the peer reviewer?

Said reviewer would simply write an article to be published in a later version of the journal expressing her concerns. There would be no need to publish her notes as they were.

 

[DGM]

Reading this it sounds like someone should talk to the journal of 911 studies. I think all they do for review is run it through spell check.

 

[MG1962]

I've heard no such rumor in any of the conferences I've attended. I don't think any legitimate scientific journal would ever publish or disseminate peer comments, and I would hope that the majority of scientists and engineers would have the professionalism not to publish any papers before the review process was completed.

Yes it would open quiet a can of worms. What would one do, facing a document produced by a close friend in the community, knowing any comments may be made public.

It can put the person in an ugly situation - be honest and destroy a friendship, be kind and risk your own reputation in the field

 

[Max Photon]

Relax, I'm sure it's nothing more that a little turbulence in the supply chain

Maybe the ASCE shipping container of meritorious ribbons got delayed
(what, with the terrorism and all).

 

[T.A.M.]

I love a discussion about Greening etal releasing details on a paper (comments or otherwise) while S. Jones will release practically nothing of his for verification...

TAM

 

[Golden Bear]

I've heard no such rumor in any of the conferences I've attended. I don't think any legitimate scientific journal would ever publish or disseminate peer comments, and I would hope that the majority of scientists and engineers would have the professionalism not to publish any papers before the review process was completed.

The journal Nature tried it in 2006, but ultimately (sadly) rejected it. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html

I've seen other references to journals showing interest in it, including a medical journal in Australia.

I personally feel it would bring more accountability into the peer review process, but I realize there are good arguments for and against. We should be clear, as well, that I'm not arguing for the disclosure of the names of the peer reviewers, just the comments. Perhaps what I'm advocating is a kind of hybrid open peer review. I don't think the comments need to be published alongside the paper in the physical journal, but with the relative ease of publishing content online, I don't see any reason why reviewer comments shouldn't be published online for others to view.

As has been discussed in other threads on this forum, a peer reviewed published paper isn't necessarily the gospel truth on a particular subject. Allowing the other scientists to see the reviewer comments may give them insights into flaws in the paper that they otherwise might not see.

The fact that JoEM is a privately owned journal invalidates your argument. It does not matter if the subject is of national interest, the comments and nature of the peer review process are the possessions of the reviewers, authors and publishers, and not anyone else.

I hope you realize I was analogizing, and arguing for public disclosure in this specific case. I know there is obviously no obligation or requirement on the part of JEM or the authors to publish the comments, and I'm not advocating that anyone force JEM or the authors to publish the comments. I was merely making a public policy argument on why they should be published in this instance voluntarily. Again, I figured you would disagree, and that's fine with me.

Said reviewer would simply write an article to be published in a later version of the journal expressing her concerns. There would be no need to publish her notes as they were.

Good point.