olegt
Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006
|
DLH might benefit from taking a peek at the actual process of peer review in an APS journal, such as Physical Review Letters. Here is an excerpt from the form a referee submits to the editors (in addition to a written report):
| Quote |
This form is to assist the Editors and is not a substitute for
your written report. It may be useful, however, as an outline
for your report, which should explain why the paper does, or
does not, meet our criteria.
*****************************************************************
Manuscript Code:
Title:
Author:
Date:
Referee:
I. Letters published in PRL must meet a high standard of importance and
interest.
a) Please judge the importance of the paper to its specific field.
not important ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) very important
b) Please judge the broad interest of the paper, apart from from its
importance to its specific field, to a wide spectrum of physicists.
not interesting ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) very interesting
c) Please judge the validity of the paper.
probably not valid ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) probably valid
|
The Physics & Society editor did not evaluate any of those points. There are two obvious reasons for that: (i) Physics & Society does not referee its articles. (ii) The editor, Al Saperstein, is not an expert on climate. Saperstein merely asked Monckton to edit the letter for clarity. That's not peer review by any measure.
--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »
|
