From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 02:26:00 2014 From: "Mezei, Mihaly mihaly.mezei : mssm.edu" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-49997-140503201220-5556-FK7Fr8glX/P0fgdkOYwDHA(0)server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Mezei, Mihaly" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 00:12:12 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Mezei, Mihaly" [mihaly.mezei^mssm.edu] >Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com] " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." >Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. I take offense at this statement. I have done a fair number of reviews and tried to do an honest job of it. Still, I happen to be uncomfortable with being known to the authors. There is an other point here: the reviewers are NOT anonymous to the editors, only to the authors. If an author trusts that the editors to treat their manuscript well then that trust could include the assumption that the editor will recognize a hatchet job or incompetent review. Besides feeling personally offended, I also think that scientists are under siege from the society at large. While I am sure that there are several examples of non-benevolent reviews, this general questioning the benevolence of the scientific community is just plain wrong and just adds munitions to those who would like to diminish the importance of science for society-wide decisions. We don't need to fight among ourselves. Note, that while I don't want to sign my reviews, I do sign this. Mihaly Mezei Department of Structural and Chemical Biology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Voice: (212) 659-5475 Fax: (212) 849-2456 WWW (MSSM home): http://www.mountsinai.org/Find%20A%20Faculty/profile.do?id=0000072500001497192632 WWW (Lab home - software, publications): http://inka.mssm.edu/~mezei WWW (Department): http://www.mssm.edu/departments-and-institutes/structural-and-chemical-biology From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 03:01:00 2014 From: "Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-49998-140503215538-20092-ChgdcdXyUUX3BWm7T+jR5w++server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Sebastian Kozuch Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090500020604050601060407" Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 20:55:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Sebastian Kozuch [seb.kozuch. . .gmail.com] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090500020604050601060407 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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’ve 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 > > 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 > > > =================================== > Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart > > ICREA Research Professor at > Institut de Química Computacional i Catŕlisi > Universitat de Girona > > Facultat de Cičncies > 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 > =================================== > > > > > -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..........Sebastian Kozuch........... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ......University of North Texas...... ..........Denton, Texas, USA......... ........ seb.kozuch . gmail.com ....... http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/kozuch.htm xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --------------090500020604050601060407 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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’ve recently read,
about how to write a paper and how to deal with the reviewing process.

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


===================================
Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart

ICREA Research Professor at
Institut de Química Computacional i Catŕlisi
Universitat de Girona

Facultat de Cičncies
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
=================================== 







-- 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..........Sebastian Kozuch...........
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
......University of North Texas......
..........Denton, Texas, USA.........
........ seb.kozuch . gmail.com .......
http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/kozuch.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--------------090500020604050601060407-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 03:36:01 2014 From: "Eric Bennett ericb-,-pobox.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-49999-140504003415-26428-iVy4L0k3XofCT/NNBFGWSQ=server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Eric Bennett Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 00:34:04 -0400 MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Sent to CCL by: Eric Bennett [ericb[#]pobox.com] Suppose you received an article to review that contained shoddy science pushing a politically popular view. Wouldn't you be concerned authors who think politics are more important than good science might retaliate against you for holding them to proper scientific standards? It would become even easier to blacklist people who don't conform to a consensus view. A relevant question for this discussion is... on the whole, is there a bigger problem with good work not being published because of vendettas, or bad work being published because of insufficient stringency and lack of criticism during the review process? I'd be more likely to say the latter... in the former case even if journal A occasionally rejects a paper due to a biased anonymous reviewer, if the work is good, journal B is probably going to take it. -Eric On May 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com] > Why should the names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only > reasonable, given the level of personal and professional antipathy present > in todays "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who > reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on the > topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political views will > ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny publication, just on the > basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics. > > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is not > allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. > > Jim Kress > > -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of tarzan p > tarzan11_11..yahoo.com > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM > To: Kress, Jim > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] Dear All........ > It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to journal goes > for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justified. > But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and his > affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! > Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? > Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? > > I hope to get some views..... > with best wishes and happy computing ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt> > -- Eric Bennett, ericb|a|pobox.com Always try to associate yourself with and learn as much as you can from those who know more than you do, who do better than you, who see more clearly than you. - Dwight Eisenhower From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 05:17:00 2014 From: "Andrew Voronkov drugdesign[*]yandex.ru" To: CCL Subject: CCL: binding sites comparison for homologous proteins Message-Id: <-50000-140504051203-7313-y0Y1f4tZsaR/CSgE6Z+ZoQ*server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Andrew Voronkov Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 13:11:53 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Andrew Voronkov [drugdesign=yandex.ru] Dear CCL users, I need to make comparison and selectivity analysis for the small ligands binding sites among multiple proteins from the same family. One way it to make pairwise superposition and manual analysis of all the interactions and amino acids. But is there a way or to automatize it? For example to write a script, which will analyze superimposed structures at ome distance from small molecule and make a list of different amino acids or maybe even which will make superposition of the structures and then analyze non-identical amino acids around small molecule? Is anything like that available? Best regards, Andrey From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 12:15:00 2014 From: "berger]|[chem.helsinki.fi" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50001-140504030024-2876-2AC2lpEXU8eTy63ARAceGw++server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: berger%a%chem.helsinki.fi Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 10:00:11 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: berger^-^chem.helsinki.fi very good suggestion, in the future I will sign also all my reviews! > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com] > " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." > > Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the > defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. > > I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews. I > applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so. > > Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and > integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions. To do > otherwise smacks of pusillanimity. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net >> [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net] On Behalf Of >> Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral::gmail.com > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM > To: Kress, Jim > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] As a past > editor-in-chief of two journals, please let me add a reason why anonymous > review is useful. > Often, authors are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes the editor is > hassled by unhappy authors (fortunately, not often). > It is part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I did > that). > But imagine what could happen when a non anonymous reviewer is hassled by > the author? > You know, editors receive contributions from very diverse authors, not all > fair, and even from sects (yes indeed). > Remember that reviewers are volounteers and benevolent. > If they should face to such authors, imagine the consequences, not only > for the reviewers themselves, but for all the scientific > community: would reviewers still accept to help? > I agree that anonymous review can be criticized, but until now it has more > advantages than drawbacks. > About the double blind review, most time it is not useful, and this is > discussed on the websites cited in a previous post. > Nevertheless, possibly it could make sense for some maths journals, > eventually as an author choice. > May be that should be experienced. > > All my best, > > Michel Petitjean > MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7, > 35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. > Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 > E-mail: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred), > michel.petitjean * univ-paris-diderot.fr > http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html > > 2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com > : >> >> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com] Why should the >> names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only reasonable, given >> the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays >> "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who >> reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on >> the topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political >> views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny >> publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward you >> and/or your politics. >> >> Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is >> not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. >> >> Jim Kress >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net >> [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of >> tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com >> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM >> To: Kress, Jim >> Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! >> >> >> Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] Dear All........ >> It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to >> journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are >> confidential. Justified. >> But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and >> his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! >> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? >> Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of >> non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? >> >> I hope to get some views..... >> with best wishes and happy computing >> ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/ >> chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt> > > From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 12:50:00 2014 From: "Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral],[gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50002-140504041517-17144-iYM6M3jSg3Kpik6ydboLbQ%server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Michel Petitjean Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 10:15:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral,gmail.com] There are unfair reviewers in any case. Anonimity is a journal rule which let to reviewers the possibility to disclose their identity in their report, even indirectly (e.g. "pls. cite my recent paper..."). Non anonymity precludes the possibility to have an anonymous review, and that latter is useful for already mentioned reasons. Then, if the author considers that an anonymous reviewer is unfair, he can complain to the editor and this latter may take some an appropriate action. In fact, the problem is not due to anonimity. For some journals, I suspect that there is the assumption that the reviewers are always right and that the authors are always wrong, or, in other words, that the journal has set a non public rule "accept only papers with zero criticism". E.g. five coauthors are reviewed by three anonymous reviewers, two of them request minor corrections, one is against publication for reasons which are not accepted by the authors; but it is hard to dialog with the reviewer through the on-line submission system and the editor will not permit many revisions of the paper; furthermore, for that journal, the (non official) rule is: publish if and only if all final reports are "all is ok, nothing to change"; in that case five coauthors + two reviewers agree that the paper is ok, and one reviewer don't (he may be right in some cases); but the journal rule applies and the paper will be rejected even if the authors are right and if the third reviewer is unfair; normally the editor can accept the paper if he understands that the reviewer is unfair, but the journal rule (probably set by the publisher) has for consequence that no acceptance is possible due to that unfair reviewer. A solution could be to submit elsewhere, if the reviewer is not yet again selected. In some specialized fields it can happen, and the consequence is some kind of censorship of (maybe) a potential important scientific progress. In my opinion, the editor should be really free to decide, rather than to be constrained by such publisher's rules. The "all is ok, nothing to change" even does not guarantee the quality of the paper (there are retracted papers in core journals): it let the publishing company to claim to its owners that a good job is done. It is not science, it is business. Of course, if such rule is just a personal editor's choice, the editor should be replaced by a secretary, or even fired. At the opposite there is an inflating number of papers (and books) of few interest, but it is an other topic. Michel Petitjean MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7, 35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 E-mail: petitjean.chiral(-)gmail.com (preferred), michel.petitjean(-)univ-paris-diderot.fr http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html 2014-05-04 0:05 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com : > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com] > " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." > > Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. > > I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews. I applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so. > > Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions. To do otherwise smacks of pusillanimity. > > Jim From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 13:25:00 2014 From: "Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz:_:hotmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50003-140504041637-18180-mS9ApYfjGbfLXSKjJNKWxA(!)server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Demetra Dimetrodon" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 04:16:35 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "Demetra Dimetrodon" [dpfiz ~ hotmail.com] Dear Dr. Petitjean, Thanks for your reply. Certainly, I did not receive a rejection after two months; rather a reply that the article was not reviewed at all. I asked for further clarification but none was provided, only a trite and bizarre reply: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Dr. Dimetrodon (not my real name) I can certainly understand that you were not happy with the decision. Your manuscript fell right on the border of what we would normally send out as we receive many more manuscripts than we can consider for peer review, let alone for publication. In this case, the referees either were too busy or did not respond at all. As we chose referees who are experts in this field and familiar with ChemPhysChem, this indicated to us that your manuscript might not be suitable for us after all. Therefore, we decided to retrurn your manuscript. Again, I apologise that you had to wait so long before hearing from us. Best wishes Greta Heydenrych ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Absolutely no justification for delaying my manuscript was given. Moreover, she "commiserates" with me being unhappy with the non-existent decicion! And here is the first communication, sent after two months after my submission: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Dr. Dimetrodon, Thank you for your letter and the above-mentioned manuscript received on 25.11.2013. We are truly sorry to have to inform you that we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication. Our policy is to publish contributions of current general interest or of great significance to a more specialized readership. Our impression is that a computational chemistry journal would be a better forum for your work. We did send your manuscript to several referees, but none of them were willing to review it for ChemPhysChem, which confirms our initial impression that your manuscript might find a more receptive audience with a more specialized journal. Therefore we now return your manuscript without waiting any longer. We are truly sorry that we cannot at this time give a more positive reply and we sincerely hope that this will not deter you from submitting further manuscripts to ChemPhysChem. Sincerely yours, Dr. Greta Heydenrych ChemPhysChem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The editor makes the ludicrous claim that a more specialized journal is needed. She needed two months to determine that? I certainly believe that something sinister is behind it. In any case, the responsible person appears to be the Editor regardless of what else is behind it. I think that people who are in these posts while not being active researchers can be easily manipulated by others. I am using a pseudonym here. My article was submitted immediately to Chemical Physics, unchanged, and accepted soon afterwards. I do not want to reveal my identity but I will say that I am the only author. Probably my former boss, who refused to associate himself with the paper, and who really had minimal involvement in it, is behind this. He had some kind of petty personal grudge against me and didn't want to be on the paper. I did not think of complaining to the publisher. I will try that. It would be nice to avoid such things in the future. I thank Marcel Swart for noting that it is common for some journals to appoint editors who are not active scientists. I think that this makes them easier to manipulate. Thanks! From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 14:00:00 2014 From: "Prof. Dr. N. Sekar nethi.sekar]-[gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50004-140504050848-6586-43h8eXmuNQNdqi/yCtRj2g*_*server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Prof. Dr. N. Sekar" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133d4e67ea1b104f88f5c3f Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 14:38:42 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Prof. Dr. N. Sekar" [nethi.sekar*|*gmail.com] --001a1133d4e67ea1b104f88f5c3f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I do full agree with Eric. Jt is just right. Not withstanding this and above all the facts need to be: *If reviewers need to know who the authors are the authors need to know who the reviewers are. The simple reason is that both are on the same boat, and it is human right.* On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Eric Bennett ericb-,-pobox.com < owner-chemistry_-_ccl.net> wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: Eric Bennett [ericb[#]pobox.com] > > Suppose you received an article to review that contained shoddy science > pushing a politically popular view. Wouldn't you be concerned authors who > think politics are more important than good science might retaliate against > you for holding them to proper scientific standards? It would become even > easier to blacklist people who don't conform to a consensus view. > > A relevant question for this discussion is... on the whole, is there a > bigger problem with good work not being published because of vendettas, or > bad work being published because of insufficient stringency and lack of > criticism during the review process? I'd be more likely to say the > latter... in the former case even if journal A occasionally rejects a paper > due to a biased anonymous reviewer, if the work is good, journal B is > probably going to take it. > > -Eric > > > > On May 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com] > > Why should the names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only > > reasonable, given the level of personal and professional antipathy > present > > in todays "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who > > reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on the > > topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political views > will > > ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny publication, just on > the > > basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics. > > > > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is > not > > allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. > > > > Jim Kress > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net > > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of > tarzan p > > tarzan11_11..yahoo.com > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM > > To: Kress, Jim > > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > > > > Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] Dear All........ > > It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to journal > goes > > for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justified. > > But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and > his > > affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! > > Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? > > Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of > > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? > > > > I hope to get some views..... > > with best wishes and happy computing ....http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt > > > > > > -- > Eric Bennett, ericb _ pobox.com > > Always try to associate yourself with and learn as much as you can from > those who know more than you do, who do better than you, who see more > clearly than you. > - Dwight Eisenhower> > > -- Thanks and regards Prof. Dr. N. Sekar CCol FSDC Head, Department of Dyestuff Technology Co-ordinator, UGC-CAS and Professor in Tinctorial Chemistry Institute of Chemical Technology (formerly UDCT) Matunga, Mumbai-400019 Mob +91-9867958452 n.sekar_-_ictmumbai.edu.in website: http://ictmumbai.edu.in/Fac_FacDetails.aspx?fidno=116 --001a1133d4e67ea1b104f88f5c3f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I do full agree with Eric. Jt is just right. =A0Not withst= anding this and above all the facts need to be:

If re= viewers need to know who the authors are the authors need to know who the r= eviewers are. =A0The simple reason is that both are on the same boat, and i= t is human right. =A0


On Sun,= May 4, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Eric Bennett ericb-,-pobox.com <owner-chemistry_-_ccl.net> wrote:

Sent to CCL by: Eric Bennett [ericb[#]pobox.com]

Suppose you received an article to review that contained shoddy science pus= hing a politically popular view. =A0Wouldn't you be concerned authors w= ho think politics are more important than good science might retaliate agai= nst you for holding them to proper scientific standards? =A0It would become= even easier to blacklist people who don't conform to a consensus view.=

A relevant question for this discussion is... on the whole, is there a bigg= er problem with good work not being published because of vendettas, or bad = work being published because of insufficient stringency and lack of critici= sm during the review process? =A0I'd be more likely to say the latter..= . in the former case even if journal A occasionally rejects a paper due to = a biased anonymous reviewer, if the work is good, journal B is probably goi= ng to take it.

-Eric



On May 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com wrote:

>
> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=3D-=3Dgmail.com]
> Why should the names of the reviewers be confidential? =A0It is only > reasonable, given the level of personal and professional antipathy pre= sent
> in todays "Science" that the authors of an article be allowe= d to see who
> reviewed their work. =A0As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on = the
> topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your poli= tical views will
> ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny publication, just = on the
> basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics.
>
> Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is= not
> allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. >
> Jim Kress
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net
> [mailto:owner-chemistr= y+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.= com(-)ccl.net] On Beha= lf Of tarzan p
> tarzan11_11..yahoo.com<= /a>
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM
> To: Kress, Jim
> Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!
>
>
> Sent to CCL by: "tarzan =A0p" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com] Dear All........
> It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to journa= l goes
> for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justified= .
> But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and= his
> affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!!
> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...??
> Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...?
>
> I hope to get some views.....
> with best wishes and happy computing ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin= /ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www= .ccl.net/spammers.txt>
>

--
Eric Bennett, ericb _ pobox.= com

Always try to associate yourself with and learn as much as you can from tho= se who know more than you do, who do better than you, who see more clearly = than you.
- Dwight Eisenhower



-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-=
E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY_-_ccl.n= et or use:
=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEM= ISTRY-REQUEST_-_ccl.net or use
=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.n= et/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/co= nferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml
=A0 =A0 =A0 h= ttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/





--
=
Thanks and regards

Prof. Dr. N. Sekar=A0=A0 CCol FSDC
Head, = Department of Dyestuff Technology
Co-ordinator, UGC-CAS and Profe= ssor in Tinctorial Chemistry
Institute of Chemical Technology (formerly UDCT)
Matunga, Mumbai-400019<= br>
Mob +91-9867958452
n.sekar_-_ictmumbai.edu.in
=A0
--001a1133d4e67ea1b104f88f5c3f-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 14:35:00 2014 From: "Alexander Bagaturyants bagaturyants!^!gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50005-140504060121-5238-fMV1NfEcrooZpTS2KJuM4g(a)server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Alexander Bagaturyants" Content-Language: ru Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 14:01:13 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Alexander Bagaturyants" [bagaturyants%%gmail.com] Dear CCL colleagues, That's a pity that social problems excite a broader and hotter discussion than scientific ones. Not speaking about the fact that all this turmoil was initiated by a completely dishonest and offensive message from a nonexistent author hiding behind a strange pseudonym "Demetra Dimetrodon". I tried to find this name in the internet, but failed. There is no mentioning of such an author in the Web of Science. In this message this personage accuses a very respectable journal and one of its editors in open and in a rather offensive manner without signing by its own real name. I believe that such messages MUST be strictly filtered by the moderator. I have no relation with the ChemPhysChem journal and moreover with this poor editor (I would not like to mention her name again without a reason). However, all my life I have been profoundly respecting both the reviewers and editors of scientific journals. Even when their criticism seems to me not quite justified, I consider it as a means of improving my articles and my work. Therefore, I consider this discussion as completely irrelevant. I hate the idea of "politicization" or even socialization of our scientific list. This may result in flooding our respectable CCL with spam and even with scam. Sorry if my letter seems to be too sharp, but I strongly hate SPAM in my mailbox. All the best to all my actually working colleagues and let us return to science. Prof. Alexander A. Bagaturyants Photochemistry Center Russian Academy of Sciences ul. Novatorov 7a, b. 1 Moscow 119421 Russia Phone: +7(495)9362588 (office) +7(916)5317022 (mobile) Fax: +7(495)9361255 e-mail: sasha{:}photonics.ru bagaturyants{:}gmail.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-chemistry+bagaturyants==gmail.com{:}ccl.net [mailto:owner- > chemistry+bagaturyants==gmail.com{:}ccl.net] On Behalf Of Eric Bennett > ericb-,-pobox.com > Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 8:34 AM > To: Bagaturyants, Alexander > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > Sent to CCL by: Eric Bennett [ericb[#]pobox.com] > > Suppose you received an article to review that contained shoddy science > pushing a politically popular view. Wouldn't you be concerned authors who > think politics are more important than good science might retaliate against > you for holding them to proper scientific standards? It would become even > easier to blacklist people who don't conform to a consensus view. > > A relevant question for this discussion is... on the whole, is there a bigger > problem with good work not being published because of vendettas, or bad > work being published because of insufficient stringency and lack of criticism > during the review process? I'd be more likely to say the latter... in the former > case even if journal A occasionally rejects a paper due to a biased anonymous > reviewer, if the work is good, journal B is probably going to take it. > > -Eric > > > > On May 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com] Why should the > > names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only reasonable, given > > the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays > > "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who > > reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on > > the topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political > > views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny > > publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or > your politics. > > > > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is > > not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. > > > > Jim Kress > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net > > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of > > tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM > > To: Kress, Jim > > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > > > > Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] Dear All........ > > It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to > > journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. > Justified. > > But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and > > his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! > > Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? > > Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of > > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? > > > > I hope to get some views..... > > with best wishes and happy computing > > ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/ > > chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt> > > > > -- > Eric Bennett, ericb _ pobox.com > > Always try to associate yourself with and learn as much as you can from > those who know more than you do, who do better than you, who see more > clearly than you. > - Dwight EisenhowerTo > recover the email address of the author of the message, please change the > strange characters on the top line to the {:} sign. You can also look up the X- > Original-From: line in the mail header. From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 15:10:01 2014 From: "Sergio Manzetti sergio.manzetti ~ outlook.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: binding sites comparison for homologous proteins Message-Id: <-50006-140504061646-12207-UKWlbdcoZOUHf6u4YEvlcA(_)server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Sergio Manzetti Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_6de49b70-c678-42e6-9d68-ff2370ecd6fb_" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 12:16:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Sergio Manzetti [sergio.manzetti[-]outlook.com] --_6de49b70-c678-42e6-9d68-ff2370ecd6fb_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Andrew=2C you could do a 3D analysis of this=2C if there are structural= candidates for Your protein Family. In any case=2C a structural analysis c= ould strengthen Your study. This can be done With Swiss PDB Viewer=2C and c= alculating the RMSD of the conserved residues at the binding site.=20 Alternatively=2C you could also do docking with Autodock=2C and see if you = get a conserved pattern of scores of binding for the ligands. =20 =20 =20 Sergio =20 > From: owner-chemistry%%ccl.net > To: sergio.manzetti%%gmx.com > Subject: CCL: binding sites comparison for homologous proteins > Date: Sun=2C 4 May 2014 13:11:53 +0400 >=20 >=20 > Sent to CCL by: Andrew Voronkov [drugdesign=3Dyandex.ru] > Dear CCL users=2C I need to make comparison and selectivity analysis for = the small ligands binding sites among multiple proteins from the same famil= y. > One way it to make pairwise superposition and manual analysis of all the = interactions and amino acids. > But is there a way or to automatize it? For example to write a script=2C= which will analyze superimposed structures at ome distance from small mole= cule and make a list of different amino acids or maybe even which will make= superposition of the structures and then analyze non-identical amino acids= around small molecule?=20 > Is anything like that available? >=20 >=20 > Best regards=2C > Andrey >=20 >=20 >=20 > -=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script = =3D- > To recover the email address of the author of the message=2C please chang= e>=20>=20>=20 > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:=20>=20 > Before posting=2C check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net >=20 > Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs=20>=20>=20 > If your mail bounces from CCL with 5.7.1 error=2C check:>=20>=20 >=20 = --_6de49b70-c678-42e6-9d68-ff2370ecd6fb_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Andrew=2C you could do a 3D&n= bsp=3B analysis of this=2C if there are structural candidates for Your prot= ein Family. In any case=2C a structural analysis could strengthen Your stud= y. This can be done With Swiss PDB =3BViewer=2C and calculating the RMS= D of the =3Bconserved residues at the binding site.
Alternatively= =2C you =3Bcould also do docking with Autodock=2C and see if you get a = conserved =3Bpattern of scores of binding for the ligands.
 =3B<= BR> =3B
 =3B
Sergio

 =3B
>=3B From: owne= r-chemistry%%ccl.net
>=3B To: sergio.manzetti%%gmx.com
>=3B Subject= : CCL: binding sites comparison for homologous proteins
>=3B Date: Sun= =2C 4 May 2014 13:11:53 +0400
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B Sent to CCL b= y: Andrew Voronkov [drugdesign=3Dyandex.ru]
>=3B Dear CCL users=2C I n= eed to make comparison and selectivity analysis for the small ligands bindi= ng sites among multiple proteins from the same family.
>=3B One way it= to make pairwise superposition and manual analysis of all the interactions= and amino acids.
>=3B But is there a way or to automatize it? For ex= ample to write a script=2C which will analyze superimposed structures at om= e distance from small molecule and make a list of different amino acids or = maybe even which will make superposition of the structures and then analyze= non-identical amino acids around small molecule?
>=3B Is anything li= ke that available?
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B Best regards=2C
>= =3B Andrey
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B -=3D This is automati= cally added to each message by the mailing script =3D-
>=3B To recover= the email address of the author of the message=2C please change
>=3B =
>= =3B
>=3B
>= =3B
>=3B http:/= /www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message
>=3B
>=3B E-mail to ad= ministrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST%%ccl.net or use
>=3B http://www.c= cl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message
>=3B
>=3B Subscribe/Unsubscr= ibe:
>=3B
>= =3B
>=3B Before posting=2C check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net
= >=3B
>=3B
>=3B Conferences: http= ://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/
>=3B
>=3B=
>= =3B
>=3B If your mail bounces from CCL with 5.7.1 error=2C check:
= >=3B
>=3B
>=3B RTFI: htt= p://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/
>=3B
>=3B
<= /div>
= --_6de49b70-c678-42e6-9d68-ff2370ecd6fb_-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 15:45:00 2014 From: "Alexander Bagaturyants sasha-x-photonics.ru" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50007-140504062452-14920-cGGj1xLM/NMeE68txuzLNg(~)server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Alexander Bagaturyants Content-Language: ru Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_027C_01CF67A4.9BD37DE0" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 14:24:50 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Alexander Bagaturyants [sasha ~~ photonics.ru] ------=_NextPart_000_027C_01CF67A4.9BD37DE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry for the repeat posting: Dear CCL colleagues, That's a pity that social problems excite a broader and hotter = discussion than scientific ones.=20 Not speaking about the fact that all this turmoil was initiated by a completely dishonest and offensive message from a nonexistent author = hiding behind a strange pseudonym "Demetra Dimetrodon". =20 I tried to find this name in the internet, but failed. There is no mentioning of such an author in the Web of Science. In this message this personage accuses a very respectable journal and one of its editors in = open and in a rather offensive manner without signing by its own real name.=20 I believe that such messages MUST be strictly filtered by the moderator. = I have no relation with the ChemPhysChem journal and moreover with this = poor editor (I would not like to mention her name again without a reason). However, all my life I have been profoundly respecting both the = reviewers and editors of scientific journals. Even when their criticism seems to = me not quite justified, I consider it as a means of improving my articles = and my work. Therefore, I consider this discussion as completely irrelevant. I hate the idea of "politicization" or even socialization of our = scientific list. This may result in flooding our respectable CCL with spam and even with scam.=20 Sorry if my letter seems to be too sharp, but I strongly hate SPAM in my mailbox. All the best to all my actually working colleagues and let us return to science. =20 Prof. Alexander A. Bagaturyants Photochemistry Center Russian Academy of Sciences ul. Novatorov 7a, b. 1 Moscow 119421 Russia Phone: +7(495)9362588 (office) +7(916)5317022 (mobile) Fax: +7(495)9361255 e-mail: sasha!A!photonics.ru=20 bagaturyants!A!gmail.com =20 =20 > From: owner-chemistry+bagaturyants=3D=3Dgmail.com!A!ccl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+bagaturyants=3D=3Dgmail.com!A!ccl.net] On Behalf = Of Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 5:55 AM To: Bagaturyants, Alexander Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning =20 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,=20 Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in research, but I would doubt seriously that this would make them incompetent. =20 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=92ve 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 =20 Good luck with the paper! =20 Marcel =20 On 2014-05-03, at 09:13, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com 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=20 active in research at all, something which is completely unheard of for = a high- profile journal. ---------- Demetra Dimetrodon =20 =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=EDmica Computacional i Cat=E0lisi Universitat de Girona Facultat de Ci=E8ncies 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=20 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 =20 =20 =20 =20 --=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 ------=_NextPart_000_027C_01CF67A4.9BD37DE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry for the repeat = posting:

Dear CCL colleagues,

That's a pity that social = problems excite a broader and hotter discussion than scientific ones. =

Not = speaking about the fact that all this turmoil was initiated by a = completely dishonest and offensive message from a nonexistent author = hiding behind a strange pseudonym "Demetra Dimetrodon".=A0 =

I tried = to find this name in the internet, but failed. There is no mentioning of = such an author in the Web of Science. In this message this personage = accuses a very respectable journal and one of its editors in open and in = a rather offensive manner without signing by its own real name. =

I = believe that such messages MUST be strictly filtered by the moderator. =

I have = no relation with the ChemPhysChem journal and moreover with this poor = editor (I would not like to mention her name again without a reason). = However, all my life I have been profoundly respecting both the = reviewers and editors of scientific journals. Even when their criticism = seems to me not quite justified, I consider it as a means of improving = my articles and my work. Therefore, I consider this discussion as = completely irrelevant.

I hate the idea of = "politicization" or even socialization of our scientific list. = This may result in flooding our respectable CCL with spam and even with = scam.

Sorry if my letter seems to be too sharp, but I strongly = hate SPAM in my mailbox.

All the best to all my actually = working colleagues and let us return to science.

 

Prof. Alexander A. = Bagaturyants

Photochemistry Center

Russian Academy of = Sciences

ul. Novatorov 7a, b. 1

Moscow 119421 = Russia

Phone: +7(495)9362588 (office)

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = +7(916)5317022 (mobile)

Fax:=A0=A0 = +7(495)9361255

e-mail:=A0=A0 sasha!A!photonics.ru =

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0bagaturyants!A!gmail.com

 

 

From: owner-chemistry+bagaturyants=3D=3Dgmail.com!A!ccl.net = [mailto:owner-chemistry+bagaturyants=3D=3Dgmail.com!A!ccl.net] On = Behalf Of Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com
Sent: = Sunday, May 04, 2014 5:55 AM
To: Bagaturyants, Alexander =
Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: = warning

 

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’ve recently = read,

about how to write a = paper and how to deal with the reviewing = process.

 

Good luck with the paper!

 

Marcel

 

On = 2014-05-03, at 09:13, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com <owner-chemistry---ccl.net&g= t; 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=EDmica Computacional i = Cat=E0lisi
Universitat de = Girona

Facultat de = Ci=E8ncies
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.euvCard <= /p>

addressbook://www.marcelsw= art.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...........
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=
xxx
......University of North =
Texas......
..........Denton, Texas, =
USA.........
........ seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com =
.......
http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il=
/kozuch.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=
x
------=_NextPart_000_027C_01CF67A4.9BD37DE0-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 16:20:00 2014 From: "tarzan p tarzan11_11#yahoo.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50008-140504085354-14967-rsHEOiLM8Kroy5ID8Dt9Uw=-=server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: tarzan p Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="275539708-77231074-1399208028=:36606" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 05:53:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: tarzan p [tarzan11_11^^^yahoo.com] --275539708-77231074-1399208028=:36606 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All...=0AAfter having initiated the dialogue .. and reading the replie= s by lots of people and couple who are themselves editors and reviewers and= some from whom I learn a lot reading their papers .. =0AWant to share a pe= rsonal experience ..:=0AMy benevolent boss asked me to go ahead and submit = a single author paper to boost my job prospectus...=A0 I submitted .. zoop.= . rejected by editor himself=A0 with out going for a review ... Journal B..= zoop again rejected by editor himself ... Not withstanding this .. I added= my boss name .. journal C ( I pushed it to a journal .. which I never=0A t= hought it will get through ..) .. done... went for a review and got accepte= d after minor revisions as suggested by two reviewers ...=0AThis many peopl= e will write off .. saying that this happed with me also .. two journals re= ject and a third might accept ..so what big deal ..=0A=0AI want to quote Mi= kael Johansson reply=0A"But for younger researchers, it could be beneficial= , both in removing some =0Aof the possible bias against their work, as well= as in perhaps making =0Athem (us) feel more confident about the=A0 fairnes= s of the system."=0A=0AIt did make me feel .. "Is the reviewing process bei= ng fair or not ...??"=0AA few things:=0A1. Only a handful of reviewers sign= their names and I think it will take a long time for that to happen unless= it becomes mandatory ... =0AAs an author .. I am interested in constructiv= e criticism .. and am not =0Ainterested to know who reviewed it .. and I am= least concerned if =0Asomeone signs it or not=A0 .... I would like to know= if some one thinks =0Aotherwise .. why does he want to know who reviewed h= is paper .. ??=0A=0A2. Many said "double blind is a joke" as any competent = reviewer gets to know whose paper is it .. .... OK let him guess ..but why = tell him aprior ..? =0A3. It makes NO good/bad to the reviewer to know the = author ... but it MIGHT effect the author, if the reviewer gets to know his= name=A0 .. some of you might think I am not right .. but still ...Why not = give the benefit of doubt to the diligent author ... =0AAfter all this ..= =0ATo have an close to unbiased process... =0Awhat is the loss/problem for = the editors to adopt a policy of nondisclosure of the author's name to the = reviewer if it is going to bring more fairness to the system ....=0A=0Achee= rs !!! =0A=0A=0A=0AOn Sunday, 4 May 2014, 4:30, Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.= com wrote:=0A =0A=0ASent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [= jimkress35[A]gmail.com]=0A" Remember that reviewers are volunteers and bene= volent."=0A=0ABenevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a fe= w of the defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented her= ein.=A0 =0A=0AI salute the people who have responded that they sign their r= eviews.=A0 I applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so.= =0A=0AThose who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and = integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions.=A0 To do = otherwise smacks of pusillanimity. =0A=0AJim=0A=0A-----Original Message----= -=0A> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net=0A [mailto:= owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net] On Behalf Of Michel Pe= titjean petitjean.chiral::gmail.com=0ASent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM=0A= To: Kress, Jim =0ASubject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!=0A=0A= =0ASent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] As a pas= t editor-in-chief of two journals, please let me add a reason why anonymous= review is useful.=0AOften, authors are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes= the editor is hassled by unhappy authors (fortunately, not often).=0AIt is= part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I did that).=0ABu= t imagine what could happen when a non anonymous reviewer is hassled by the= author?=0AYou know, editors receive contributions from very diverse author= s, not all fair, and=0A even from sects (yes indeed).=0ARemember that revie= wers are volounteers and benevolent.=0AIf they should face to such authors,= imagine the consequences, not only for the reviewers themselves, but for a= ll the scientific=0Acommunity: would reviewers still accept to help?=0AI ag= ree that anonymous review can be criticized, but until now it has more adva= ntages than drawbacks.=0AAbout the double blind review, most time it is not= useful, and this is discussed on the websites cited in a previous post.=0A= Nevertheless, possibly it could make sense for some maths journals, eventua= lly as an author choice.=0AMay be that should be experienced.=0A=0AAll my b= est,=0A=0AMichel Petitjean=0AMTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7,=0A3= 5 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France.=0APhone: +331 5727 8434; = Fax: +331 5727 8372=0AE-mail: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred),=0A= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 michel.petitjean * univ-paris-diderot.fr http://petitjeanmi= chel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html=0A=0A2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Kres= s jimkress35]![gmail.com :=0A>=0A> Sent to CCL b= y: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=3D-=3Dgmail.com] Why should the =0A> names of th= e reviewers be confidential?=A0 It is only reasonable, given =0A> the level= of personal and professional antipathy present in todays =0A> "Science" th= at the authors of an article be=0A allowed to see who =0A> reviewed their w= ork.=A0 As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on =0A> the topic of "Gl= obal Warming", reviewers who object to your political =0A> views will ignor= e the scientific aspects of your work and deny =0A> publication, just on th= e basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics.=0A>=0A= > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is = =0A> not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work= .=0A>=0A> Jim Kress=0A>=0A> -----Original Message-----=0A>> From: owner-che= mistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net=0A> [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimk= ress35=3D=3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of =0A> tarzan p tarzan11_11..ya= hoo.com=0A> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM=0A> To: Kress, Jim=0A> Su= bject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!=0A>=0A>=0A> Sent to CCL by= : "tarzan=A0 p" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com] Dear All........=0A> It is of= ten(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to =0A> journal goes f= or a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justified.=0A> = But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and =0A>= his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!!=0A> Will it no= t put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...??=0A> Will it be not possi= ble for the journal editors to adopt a policy of =0A> non-disclosure of the= authors till the work is accepted...?=0A>=0A> I hope to get some views....= .=0A> with best wishes and happy computing =0A> ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-= bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/=0A> chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlht= tp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messag= ehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.tx= t=0A=0A=0A-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing s= cript =3D-=0ATo recover the email address of the author of the message, ple= ase change=0Athe strange characters on the top line to the /./ sign. You can = also=0A=0A=0AE-mail to= subscribers: CHEMISTRY/./ccl.net or use:=0A=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/cg= i-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message=0A=0AE-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST= /./ccl.net or use=0A=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messa= ge=0A=0A=0A=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/= sub_unsub.shtml=0A=0A= =0A=0A=0AConferences: http://server.ccl.net/ch= emistry/announcements/conferences/=0A=0ASearch Messages: http://www.ccl.net= /chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml=0A=0AIf your mail bounces from CCL with 5.= 7.1 error, check:=0A=A0 =A0 =A0=0A=0ARTFI: = http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/ --275539708-77231074-1399208028=:36606 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All...
After having initiated the di= alogue .. and reading the replies by lots of people and couple who are them= selves editors and reviewers and some from whom I learn a lot reading their= papers ..
Want to share a personal exp= erience ..:
My benevolent boss aske= d me to go ahead and submit a single author paper to boost my job prospectu= s...  I submitted .. zoop.. rejected by editor himself  with out going for a review ... Jo= urnal B.. zoop again rejected by editor himself ... Not withstanding this .= . I added my boss name .. journal C ( I pushed it to a journal .. which I n= ever=0A thought it will get through ..) .. done... went for a review and go= t accepted after minor revisions as suggested by two reviewers ...
This many people will write off .. saying t= hat this happed with me also .. two journals reject and a third might accep= t ..so what big deal ..
I want to quote Mikael Johansson reply
"But=0A for younger researchers, it could be beneficial,= both in removing some =0Aof the possible bias against their work, as well = as in perhaps making =0Athem (us) feel more confident about the  fairn= ess of the system."

It d= id make me feel .. "Is the reviewing process being fair or not ...??"
A few things:
1= . Only a handful of reviewers sign their names and I think it will take a l= ong time for that to happen unless it becomes mandatory ...
As an author .. I am interested in constructive criticism .. and= am not =0Ainterested to know who reviewed it .. and I am least concerned i= f =0Asomeone signs it or not  .... I would like to know if some one th= inks =0Aotherwise .. why does he want to know who reviewed his paper .. ??<= br style=3D"" class=3D"">
2. Many said "double blind is a= joke" as any competent reviewer gets to know whose paper is it .. .... OK = let him guess ..but why tell him aprior ..?
3. It= makes NO good/bad to the reviewer to know the author ... but it MIGHT effe= ct the author, if the reviewer gets to know his name  .. some of you m= ight think I am not right .. but still ...Why not give the benefit of doubt= to the diligent author ...
After all this ..
To have an close to unbiased process...
what is t= he loss/problem for the editors to adopt a policy of nondisclosure of the a= uthor's name to the reviewer if it is going to bring more fairness to the system ....

c= heers !!!


On Sunday, 4 May 2014, 4:30, Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com <o= wner-chemistry/./ccl.net> wrote:
=

Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com]
" Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent."

Benevolence is an assumption that is not= consistent with a few of the defenders of the "anonymous review" system th= at have commented herein. 
I salute the people who have respond= ed that they sign their reviews.  I applaud their personal and intelle= ctual integrity in doing so.

Those who undertake to guard the portals= of Scientific soundness and integrity should be willing to place their nam= e on their actions.  To do otherwise smacks of pusillanimity.

J= im

-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net=0A [mailto= :owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net] On Behalf Of Michel P= etitjean petitjean.chiral::gmail.com
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM
To: Kress, Jim
Subject: CCL: Nam= e of authors during review ...!!!
<= br class=3D"" style=3D"" clear=3D"none">
Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] As a = past editor-in-chief of two journals, please let me add a reason why anonym= ous review is useful.
Often, author= s are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes the editor is hassled by unhappy = authors (fortunately, not often).
I= t is part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I did that).<= br class=3D"" style=3D"" clear=3D"none">But imagine what could happen when = a non anonymous reviewer is hassled by the author?
You know, editors receive = contributions from very diverse authors, not all fair, and=0A even from sec= ts (yes indeed).
Remember that revi= ewers are volounteers and benevolent.
If they should face to such authors, imagine the consequences, not only = for the reviewers themselves, but for all the scientific
community: would reviewers still accept to help?
I agree that anonymous review can be cr= iticized, but until now it has more advantages than drawbacks.
About the double blind review, most time it is = not useful, and this is discussed on the websites cited in a previous post.=
Nevertheless, possibly it could ma= ke sense for some maths journals, eventually as an author choice.
May be that should be experienced.

Al= l my best,

Michel PetitjeanMTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Pa= ris 7,
35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 P= aris Cedex 13, France.
Phone: +331 = 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372
E-ma= il: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred),
        michel.petitjean * univ-paris-didero= t.fr http://p= etitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html

2014-05-02 17:27 GMT= +02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com <owner-chemistry * ccl.net>:<= br class=3D"" style=3D"" clear=3D"none">>
> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=3D-=3Dgmail.com] Why should the
> names of the = reviewers be confidential?  It is only reasonable, given
> the level of personal and professional ant= ipathy present in todays
> "Sci= ence" that the authors of an article be=0A allowed to see who
> reviewed their work.  As we have seen= exposed in the media, e.g. on
>= ; the topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political > views will ignore the scientific= aspects of your work and deny
>= ; publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward you and= /or your politics.
>
> Authors should be allowed to ensure this = type of nonscientific bias is
>= not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work.>
> Jim Kress
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com(-)= ccl.net
> [mailto:owner-chemistr= y+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of=0A
> tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM
> To: Kress, Jim
> Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!>
>
> Sent to CCL by:= "tarzan  p" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com] Dear All........
> It is often(or probably always ...) th= at a submitted article to
> jou= rnal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Just= ified.
> But why is that the rev= iewers get to know the names of the authors and
> his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...= !!!
> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...??
> Will it be not possible for the journal editors = to adopt a policy of
> non-disc= losure of the authors till the work is accepted...?
>
> I hope t= o get some views.....
> with bes= t wishes and happy computing
> = ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/
> chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://ww= w.ccl.net/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp:/= /www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt


-=3D This is automatically added = to each message by the mailing script =3D-
To recover the email address of the author of th= e message, please change
the strang= e characters on the top line to the /./ sign. You can also

E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY/./ccl.net or use:
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message=

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST/./ccl.net or= use
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/= ccl/send_ccl_message

      http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://ww= w.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs=
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/c= hemistry/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistr= y/searchccl/index.shtml

If your mail bounces from CCL with 5.7.1 = error, check:
      = http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/



=
--275539708-77231074-1399208028=:36606-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 16:55:00 2014 From: "Ma, Buyong (NIH/NCI) C mabuyong[A]mail.nih.gov" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50009-140504100825-29760-UNCu3teik5eooyGJba7PJg{}server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Ma, Buyong (NIH/NCI) [C]" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 14:08:08 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Ma, Buyong (NIH/NCI) [C]" [mabuyong*mail.nih.gov] It is normal to have more than two months to get reviewers' comments back. But it is not acceptable to hold a manuscript for two months and returned without sending for review. Of course, this does not related to if the editor is an active researcher or not. I understand Demetr's frustration. Buyong Ma ================================================================= Buyong Ma, PhD National Cancer Institute, Leidos Biomed., Cancer and Inflammation Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Frederick, MD 21702 E-mail: mabuyong- -mail.nih.gov Tel: 301-8466540 ================================================================= ________________________________ > From: owner-chemistry+mab==ncifcrf.gov- -ccl.net [owner-chemistry+mab==ncifcrf.gov- -ccl.net] on behalf of Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat [owner-chemistry- -ccl.net] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 16:11 To: Ma, Buyong (NIH/NCI) [C] Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning 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’ve 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 > 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 =================================== Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart ICREA Research Professor at Institut de Química Computacional i Catŕlisi Universitat de Girona Facultat de Cičncies 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 =================================== From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 17:29:01 2014 From: "Alan Shusterman alan=reed.edu" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50010-140504130208-27999-0bJ1kYxP+TpRkE1Pru4Mow|*|server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Alan Shusterman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020006010104090708050309" Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 10:01:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Alan Shusterman [alan,,reed.edu] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020006010104090708050309 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Perhaps the next step is obvious? Let's make the paper "blind" as well so that its contents don't prejudice the readers... On 5/3/14, 6:55 PM, Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com 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’ve 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 >> > > 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 >> >> >> =================================== >> Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart >> >> ICREA Research Professor at >> Institut de Química Computacional i Catŕlisi >> Universitat de Girona >> >> Facultat de Cičncies >> 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 >> =================================== >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ..........Sebastian Kozuch........... > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ......University of North Texas...... > ..........Denton, Texas, USA......... > ........seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com ....... > http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/kozuch.htm > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Alan Shusterman Chemistry Department Reed College 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, OR 97202-8199 503-517-7699 http://blogs.reed.edu/alan/ "Nature doesn't make long speeches." Lao Tzu 23 --------------020006010104090708050309 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Perhaps the next step is obvious? Let's make the paper "blind" as well so that its contents don't prejudice the readers...

On 5/3/14, 6:55 PM, Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com 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’ve recently read,
about how to write a paper and how to deal with the reviewing process.

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


===================================
Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart

ICREA Research Professor at
Institut de Química Computacional i Catŕlisi
Universitat de Girona

Facultat de Cičncies
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
=================================== 







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

-- 
Alan Shusterman
Chemistry Department
Reed College
3203 SE Woodstock Blvd
Portland, OR 97202-8199
503-517-7699
http://blogs.reed.edu/alan/
"Nature doesn't make long speeches." Lao Tzu 23
--------------020006010104090708050309-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 18:04:00 2014 From: "RICHARD WOOD rwoodphd**msn.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50011-140504143712-1326-Q/Fbt+eGGk2wICY08FuWOQ ~~ server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: RICHARD WOOD Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_2aa21478-57a8-40ea-9939-19b454989b66_" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 13:37:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: RICHARD WOOD [rwoodphd(0)msn.com] --_2aa21478-57a8-40ea-9939-19b454989b66_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Some journals require an author to submit a List of names to function as po= tential reviewers. I have experienced this a few times. Richard > From: owner-chemistry-,-ccl.net To: rwoodphd-,-msn.com Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Date: Sun=2C 4 May 2014 14:38:42 +0530 I do full agree with Eric. Jt is just right. Not withstanding this and abo= ve all the facts need to be: If reviewers need to know who the authors are the authors need to know who = the reviewers are. The simple reason is that both are on the same boat=2C = and it is human right. =0A= On Sun=2C May 4=2C 2014 at 10:04 AM=2C Eric Bennett ericb-=2C-pobox.com wrote: =0A= =0A= Sent to CCL by: Eric Bennett [ericb[#]pobox.com] =0A= =0A= Suppose you received an article to review that contained shoddy science pus= hing a politically popular view. Wouldn't you be concerned authors who thi= nk politics are more important than good science might retaliate against yo= u for holding them to proper scientific standards? It would become even ea= sier to blacklist people who don't conform to a consensus view. =0A= =0A= =0A= A relevant question for this discussion is... on the whole=2C is there a bi= gger problem with good work not being published because of vendettas=2C or = bad work being published because of insufficient stringency and lack of cri= ticism during the review process? I'd be more likely to say the latter... = in the former case even if journal A occasionally rejects a paper due to a = biased anonymous reviewer=2C if the work is good=2C journal B is probably g= oing to take it. =0A= =0A= =0A= -Eric =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= On May 2=2C 2014=2C at 11:27 AM=2C Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com wrote: =0A= =0A= > =0A= > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=3D-=3Dgmail.com] =0A= > Why should the names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only =0A= > reasonable=2C given the level of personal and professional antipathy pres= ent =0A= > in todays "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who =0A= > reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media=2C e.g. on the =0A= > topic of "Global Warming"=2C reviewers who object to your political views= will =0A= > ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny publication=2C just o= n the =0A= > basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics. =0A= > =0A= > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is no= t =0A= > allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. =0A= > =0A= > Jim Kress =0A= > =0A= > -----Original Message----- =0A= >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net =0A= > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of= tarzan p =0A= =0A= > tarzan11_11..yahoo.com =0A= > Sent: Thursday=2C May 01=2C 2014 11:19 PM =0A= > To: Kress=2C Jim =0A= > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! =0A= > =0A= > =0A= > Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com] Dear All.......= . =0A= > It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to journal g= oes =0A= > for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justified. =0A= > But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and hi= s =0A= > affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! =0A= > Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? =0A= > Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of =0A= > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? =0A= > =0A= > I hope to get some views..... =0A= > with best wishes and happy computing ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/s= end_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.n= et/spammers.txt> =0A= =0A= > =0A= =0A= -- =0A= Eric Bennett=2C ericb _ pobox.com =0A= =0A= Always try to associate yourself with and learn as much as you can from tho= se who know more than you do=2C who do better than you=2C who see more clea= rly than you. =0A= - Dwight Eisenhower =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= -=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-=
Some journals require an author = to submit a List of names to function as potential reviewers. =3B I hav= e experienced this a few times.

Richard

From: owner-chemistry-,-ccl.net
To: rwoodphd-,-msn.com
Subject: C= CL: Name of authors during review ...!!!
Date: Sun=2C 4 May 2014 14:38:4= 2 +0530

I do full agree with Eric. Jt is just right= .  =3BNot withstanding this and above all the facts need to be:
If reviewers need to know who the authors are the authors ne= ed to know who the reviewers are.  =3BThe simple reason is that both ar= e on the same boat=2C and it is human right.  =3B
=0A=


O= n Sun=2C May 4=2C 2014 at 10:04 AM=2C Eric Bennett ericb-=2C-pobox.com <=3Bowner-chemistry= .. ccl.net>=3B wrote:
=0A=

=0A= Sent to CCL by: Eric Bennett [ericb[#]pobox.com]
=0A=
=0A= Suppose you received an article to review that contained shoddy science pus= hing a politically popular view.  =3BWouldn't you be concerned authors = who think politics are more important than good science might retaliate aga= inst you for holding them to proper scientific standards?  =3BIt would = become even easier to blacklist people who don't conform to a consensus vie= w.
=0A= =0A=
=0A= A relevant question for this discussion is... on the whole=2C is there a bi= gger problem with good work not being published because of vendettas=2C or = bad work being published because of insufficient stringency and lack of cri= ticism during the review process?  =3BI'd be more likely to say the lat= ter... in the former case even if journal A occasionally rejects a paper du= e to a biased anonymous reviewer=2C if the work is good=2C journal B is pro= bably going to take it.
=0A= =0A=
=0A= -Eric
=0A=

=0A=
=0A=
=0A= On May 2=2C 2014=2C at 11:27 AM=2C Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com wrote:
=0A=
=0A= >=3B
=0A= >=3B Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=3D-=3Dgmail.com]
=0A= >=3B Why should the names of the reviewers be confidential?  =3BIt is= only
=0A= >=3B reasonable=2C given the level of personal and professional antipathy= present
=0A= >=3B in todays "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see= who
=0A= >=3B reviewed their work.  =3BAs we have seen exposed in the media=2C= e.g. on the
=0A= >=3B topic of "Global Warming"=2C reviewers who object to your political = views will
=0A= >=3B ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny publication=2C j= ust on the
=0A= >=3B basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics.=0A= >=3B
=0A= >=3B Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias = is not
=0A= >=3B allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work.<= br>=0A= >=3B
=0A= >=3B Jim Kress
=0A= >=3B
=0A= >=3B -----Original Message-----
=0A= >=3B>=3B From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net
=0A= >=3B [mailto:owner-chemis= try+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmai= l.com(-)ccl.net] On Be= half Of tarzan p
=0A= =0A= >=3B tarzan11_11..yahoo.co= m
=0A= >=3B Sent: Thursday=2C May 01=2C 2014 11:19 PM
=0A= >=3B To: Kress=2C Jim
=0A= >=3B Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!
=0A= >=3B
=0A= >=3B
=0A= >=3B Sent to CCL by: "tarzan  =3Bp" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com] Dear All........
=0A= >=3B It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to jour= nal goes
=0A= >=3B for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justifi= ed.
=0A= >=3B But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors a= nd his
=0A= >=3B affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!!
=0A= >=3B Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...??
=0A= >=3B Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of=
=0A= >=3B non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...?
=0A= >=3B
=0A= >=3B I hope to get some views.....
=0A= >=3B with best wishes and happy computing ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-b= in/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://w= ww.ccl.net/spammers.txt>=3B
=0A= =0A= >=3B
=0A=
=0A=
--
=0A= Eric Bennett=2C ericb _ pobo= x.com
=0A=
=0A= Always try to associate yourself with and learn as much as you can from tho= se who know more than you do=2C who do better than you=2C who see more clea= rly than you.
=0A= - Dwight Eisenhower
=0A=

=0A=
=0A=
=0A= -=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-= <=3Bbr

=0A=
=0A= E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY ..= ccl.net or use:
=0A=  =3B  =3B  =3B http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messa= ge
=0A=
=0A= E-mail to administrators: C= HEMISTRY-REQUEST .. ccl.net or use
=0A=  =3B  =3B  =3B http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messa= ge
=0A=
=0A= Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
=0A=  =3B  =3B  =3B http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml=
=0A=
=0A= Before posting=2C check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net
=0A=
=0A= Job: http://www.ccl.n= et/jobs
=0A= Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/co= nferences/
=0A=
=0A= Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml
=0A= <=3Bbr
=0A=  =3B  =3B  =3B http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt
=0A=
=0A= RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=



--
=
Thanks and regards

Prof. Dr. N. Sekar =3B =3B CCol FSDC=
Head=2C Department of Dyestuff Technology
Co-ordinator=2C UGC= -CAS and Professor in Tinctorial Chemistry
=0A= Institute of Chemical Technology (formerly UDCT)
Matunga=2C Mumbai-40001= 9

Mob +91-9867958452
n.sekar .. ictmumbai.edu.in
=0A=
 =3B
=0A= =0A=
= --_2aa21478-57a8-40ea-9939-19b454989b66_-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 18:40:00 2014 From: "Jack Miller jmiller * brocku.ca" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50012-140504131410-4672-uEYk47gkxDFfRNRFQiuIJQ-#-server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Jack Miller Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5E712A71001140E895A6D974BE1ACC43exchangebrockuca_" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 17:14:03 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Jack Miller [jmiller * brocku.ca] --_000_5E712A71001140E895A6D974BE1ACC43exchangebrockuca_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am a retired chemist and VP Research, still tying up loose end of 40+ yea= rs of lab results. My wife is retired dramatic arts Prof, Some of her pape= rs too over a year to get the reviews back, which is also the case is disci= plines 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 she could ide= ntify the author, and for reviews of her own papers, books and grant applic= ations she was almost always sure who the anonymous referees were. In chemistry I could very often identify the referees for my nearly 200 pa= pers. 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. Jmiller()brocku.ca Sent from my iPad On May 4, 2014, at 4:33 AM, "Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com" > wrot= e: I vote for the "triple-blind" review: Nobody knows the reviewers, the autho= rs, 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=92ve 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 > wrot= e: Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my case tw= o 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 h= igh- 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=EDmica Computacional i Cat=E0lisi Universitat de Girona Facultat de Ci=E8ncies 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 --_000_5E712A71001140E895A6D974BE1ACC43exchangebrockuca_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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, So= me 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 suppr= essed - it being a relatively small field, and in almost all cases she coul= d identify the author, and for reviews of her own papers, books and grant a= pplications she was almost always sure who the anonymous referees were. 

In chemistry I could very often  identify the referees for my nea= rly 200 papers. If the authors were anonymous they would still be identifia= ble by the references or the instrumentation used or as one of my mentors u= sed 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" revi= ew: 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=92ve recently re= ad,
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<= span class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
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=EDmica Computacional i Cat=E0lisi
Universitat de Girona

Facultat de Ci=E8ncies
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.mar= celswart.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
--_000_5E712A71001140E895A6D974BE1ACC43exchangebrockuca_-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 19:15:00 2014 From: "Ambrish K Srivastava ambrishphysics^gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50013-140504150003-21380-YRhPAYxm/xGGuQh9ZPYsiQ() server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Ambrish K Srivastava Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 00:29:55 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Ambrish K Srivastava [ambrishphysics{:}gmail.com] Dear Prof. Petitjean, How can the authors know whether it is publisher's rule or editor's personal choice? For instance, if a paper coauthored by three persons is suggested for submission to a particular journal by two experts, and editor of that journal returns it back to the authors saying "The manuscript's content is beyond the scope of this journal or manuscript should be submitted to any more specialized journal (or something like this)", while 3 coauthors + 2 experts totally disagree with him. Who should be responsible for such an irritating act? I am sure that many researchers are facing such frustrations, where their good works are always underestimated by editor's of good journals. What should the authors do in such cases? Should they claim to the publisher? Thanks in advance for your nice suggestion. On 5/4/14, Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral],[gmail.com wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral,gmail.com] > There are unfair reviewers in any case. > Anonimity is a journal rule which let to reviewers the possibility to > disclose their identity in their report, even indirectly (e.g. "pls. > cite my recent paper..."). > Non anonymity precludes the possibility to have an anonymous review, > and that latter is useful for already mentioned reasons. > Then, if the author considers that an anonymous reviewer is unfair, he > can complain to the editor and this latter may take some an > appropriate action. > In fact, the problem is not due to anonimity. > For some journals, I suspect that there is the assumption that the > reviewers are always right and that the authors are always wrong, or, > in other words, that the journal has set a non public rule "accept > only papers with zero criticism". > E.g. five coauthors are reviewed by three anonymous reviewers, two of > them request minor corrections, one is against publication for reasons > which are not accepted by the authors; but it is hard to dialog with > the reviewer through the on-line submission system and the editor will > not permit many revisions of the paper; furthermore, for that journal, > the (non official) rule is: publish if and only if all final reports > are "all is ok, nothing to change"; in that case five coauthors + two > reviewers agree that the paper is ok, and one reviewer don't (he may > be right in some cases); but the journal rule applies and the paper > will be rejected even if the authors are right and if the third > reviewer is unfair; normally the editor can accept the paper if he > understands that the reviewer is unfair, but the journal rule > (probably set by the publisher) has for consequence that no acceptance > is possible due to that unfair reviewer. > A solution could be to submit elsewhere, if the reviewer is not yet > again selected. In some specialized fields it can happen, and the > consequence is some kind of censorship of (maybe) a potential > important scientific progress. > In my opinion, the editor should be really free to decide, rather than > to be constrained by such publisher's rules. The "all is ok, nothing > to change" even does not guarantee the quality of the paper (there are > retracted papers in core journals): it let the publishing company to > claim to its owners that a good job is done. It is not science, it is > business. Of course, if such rule is just a personal editor's choice, > the editor should be replaced by a secretary, or even fired. > At the opposite there is an inflating number of papers (and books) of > few interest, but it is an other topic. > > Michel Petitjean > MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7, > 35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. > Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 > E-mail: petitjean.chiral() gmail.com (preferred), > michel.petitjean() univ-paris-diderot.fr > http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html > > 2014-05-04 0:05 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com > : >> >> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com] >> " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." >> >> Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the >> defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. >> >> I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews. I >> applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so. >> >> Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and >> integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions. To do >> otherwise smacks of pusillanimity. >> >> Jim> > > -- *Ambrish K. Srivastava CSIR Junior Research Fellow Department of Physics University of Lucknow Lucknow, India-226007* From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 19:50:00 2014 From: "Jack Miller jmiller-*-brocku.ca" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50014-140504151248-32377-V66vVtIFFugP70yKsCAxwQ ~ server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Jack Miller Content-ID: Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 19:12:40 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Jack Miller [jmiller^^^brocku.ca] Many journals have a policy of sending papers that receive mixed reviews that the editor feels may be acceptable to a third referee to adjudicate. In some cases the editor simply identifies that there is disagreement among the reviewers and asks for a third opinion, while others send both the manuscript and the first two reviewers comments to the third reviewer. For one granting agency I serve on, there is a review panel that decides on conflicts between reviewers of a grant application and the grants committee. Both authors, referees and editors are human. They can make mistakes. Authors may make changes suggested by the referee, or they may disagree with the referees and/or the editor's decision. They can argue or just send the manuscript to a different journal. I have had the experience of sending two papers to two different journals and having both rejected for reasons I disagreed with. I just swapped them, sending them unchanged to the other journal. Both were then accepted with no changes! If journals don't accept that a referee can ask for changes, often grammatical in the case of non-native English speakers they waste everyone's time. Some journals will make the editorial grammatical corrections while others insist that the authors do so, which may be impossible given the state of the authors English. With grammar no longer taught in many schools even native English speakers may write illiterate garble. Often the referees may make suggestion that leads to a breakthrough, with honest authors thanking the anonymous referee and others claiming the idea for themselves. When you've been around as long as I have (submitted my first paper in 1961) you get to see and hear of most everything. Dr. Jack Martin Miller Special Advisor on Buildings and Space, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1. Phone 905 688 5550, ext 3789; Fax 905 684 2277. On 5/4/14 4:15 AM, "Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral],[gmail.com" wrote: > >Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral,gmail.com] >There are unfair reviewers in any case. >Anonimity is a journal rule which let to reviewers the possibility to >disclose their identity in their report, even indirectly (e.g. "pls. >cite my recent paper..."). >Non anonymity precludes the possibility to have an anonymous review, >and that latter is useful for already mentioned reasons. >Then, if the author considers that an anonymous reviewer is unfair, he >can complain to the editor and this latter may take some an >appropriate action. >In fact, the problem is not due to anonimity. >For some journals, I suspect that there is the assumption that the >reviewers are always right and that the authors are always wrong, or, >in other words, that the journal has set a non public rule "accept >only papers with zero criticism". >E.g. five coauthors are reviewed by three anonymous reviewers, two of >them request minor corrections, one is against publication for reasons >which are not accepted by the authors; but it is hard to dialog with >the reviewer through the on-line submission system and the editor will >not permit many revisions of the paper; furthermore, for that journal, >the (non official) rule is: publish if and only if all final reports >are "all is ok, nothing to change"; in that case five coauthors + two >reviewers agree that the paper is ok, and one reviewer don't (he may >be right in some cases); but the journal rule applies and the paper >will be rejected even if the authors are right and if the third >reviewer is unfair; normally the editor can accept the paper if he >understands that the reviewer is unfair, but the journal rule >(probably set by the publisher) has for consequence that no acceptance >is possible due to that unfair reviewer. >A solution could be to submit elsewhere, if the reviewer is not yet >again selected. In some specialized fields it can happen, and the >consequence is some kind of censorship of (maybe) a potential >important scientific progress. >In my opinion, the editor should be really free to decide, rather than >to be constrained by such publisher's rules. The "all is ok, nothing >to change" even does not guarantee the quality of the paper (there are >retracted papers in core journals): it let the publishing company to >claim to its owners that a good job is done. It is not science, it is >business. Of course, if such rule is just a personal editor's choice, >the editor should be replaced by a secretary, or even fired. >At the opposite there is an inflating number of papers (and books) of >few interest, but it is an other topic. > >Michel Petitjean >MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7, >35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. >Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 >E-mail: petitjean.chiral() gmail.com (preferred), > michel.petitjean() univ-paris-diderot.fr >http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html > >2014-05-04 0:05 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com >: >> >> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com] >> " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." >> >> Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the >>defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. >> >> I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews. I >>applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so. >> >> Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and >>integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions. To do >>otherwise smacks of pusillanimity. >> >> Jim> > From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 20:25:00 2014 From: "Jim Kress jimkress35[a]gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50015-140504151832-6305-YsFspdSk0tyOl+WKMfqfyA__server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Jim Kress" Content-Language: en-us Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 15:18:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35|,|gmail.com] Here is an interesting link that helps illustrates a few examples of the existence of the concern with "peer review" vs "pal review" and reviewer/ author anonymity: http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/06/16/peer-review-and-pal-r eview-in-climate-science/ Jim -----Original Message----- > From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(0)ccl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(0)ccl.net] On Behalf Of Eric Bennett ericb-,-pobox.com Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 12:34 AM To: Kress, Jim Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Sent to CCL by: Eric Bennett [ericb[#]pobox.com] Suppose you received an article to review that contained shoddy science pushing a politically popular view. Wouldn't you be concerned authors who think politics are more important than good science might retaliate against you for holding them to proper scientific standards? It would become even easier to blacklist people who don't conform to a consensus view. A relevant question for this discussion is... on the whole, is there a bigger problem with good work not being published because of vendettas, or bad work being published because of insufficient stringency and lack of criticism during the review process? I'd be more likely to say the latter... in the former case even if journal A occasionally rejects a paper due to a biased anonymous reviewer, if the work is good, journal B is probably going to take it. -Eric On May 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com] Why should the > names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only reasonable, given > the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays > "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who > reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on > the topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political > views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny > publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics. > > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is > not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. > > Jim Kress > > -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of > tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM > To: Kress, Jim > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] Dear All........ > It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to > journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justified. > But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and > his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! > Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? > Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? > > I hope to get some views..... > with best wishes and happy computing > ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/ > chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt> > -- Eric Bennett, ericb _ pobox.com Always try to associate yourself with and learn as much as you can from those who know more than you do, who do better than you, who see more clearly than you. - Dwight Eisenhowerhttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 21:00:00 2014 From: "Visvaldas K. coyote_v2002 ~ yahoo.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50016-140504153053-16050-TG2+hfTb0BVGEE5Z/JcNBA]-[server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Visvaldas K." Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 12:30:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Visvaldas K." [coyote_v2002]|[yahoo.com] > From this discussion I can see that the arguments can go both ways for anonymous or signed reviews. I just can share with you my own anecdotal evidence. Some scientist (I know him, but just barely) I think somehow figured out that I am the reviewer of one of his papers and sent the second paper few months after the first. The thing is he is not an English speaker, so I spent a significant amount of time (and several review iterations) figuring out and putting all clarification requests into the review (his the science was o.k., actually, it was just the problem of logic/language). So, perhaps I should have refused the second review after this, but I did a similar style review anyway. In a conclusion, I am for the anonymity of reviews, because eventually the "kind" ones will be selected more and the "unkind" reviewers will be avoided. Vis Kairys Institute of Biotechnology Vilnius University -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 5/3/14, Mezei, Mihaly mihaly.mezei : mssm.edu wrote: Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! To: "Kairys, Visvaldas " Date: Saturday, May 3, 2014, 8:12 PM Sent to CCL by: "Mezei, Mihaly" [mihaly.mezei^mssm.edu] >Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com] " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." >Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. I take offense at this statement. I have done a fair number of reviews and tried to do an honest job of it. Still, I happen to be uncomfortable with being known to the authors. There is an other point here: the reviewers are NOT anonymous to the editors, only to the authors. If an author trusts that the editors to treat their manuscript well then that trust could include the assumption that the editor will recognize a hatchet job or incompetent review. Besides feeling personally offended, I also think that scientists are under siege from the society at large. While I am sure that there are several examples of non-benevolent reviews, this general questioning the benevolence of the scientific community is just plain wrong and just adds munitions to those who would like to diminish the importance of science for society-wide decisions.  We don't need to fight among ourselves. Note, that while I don't want to sign my reviews, I do sign this. Mihaly Mezei Department of Structural and Chemical Biology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Voice:  (212) 659-5475   Fax: (212) 849-2456 WWW (MSSM home): http://www.mountsinai.org/Find%20A%20Faculty/profile.do?id=0000072500001497192632 WWW (Lab home - software, publications): http://inka.mssm.edu/~mezei WWW (Department): http://www.mssm.edu/departments-and-institutes/structural-and-chemical-biology                     From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 21:35:00 2014 From: "Thomas Manz thomasamanz^-^gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50017-140504160748-16493-AQg+xXLrfnk24ochMiH45Q-,-server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Thomas Manz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01538de03123a604f8989118 Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 14:07:41 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Thomas Manz [thomasamanz]^[gmail.com] --089e01538de03123a604f8989118 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dr. Dimetrodon, The system is imperfect, but generally you get better results if you work with it than against it. It's relatively common for reviewers and editors to claim a manuscript is better suited for a 'more specialized journal'. Yes, it's really just an excuse, and most of the time it's completely unjustified. However, there is essentially no point in trying to argue with the editors. If a journal rejects a manuscript, whether for a good or dubious reason, just revise it the best you can and resubmit it to another journal. If your work is good and becomes highly cited, eventually the journals will start to catch on after a few years. Tom Manz assistant professor, chemical & materials engineering New Mexico State University On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz:_:hotmail.com < owner-chemistry**ccl.net> wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Demetra Dimetrodon" [dpfiz ~ hotmail.com] > > Dear Dr. Petitjean, > > Thanks for your reply. Certainly, I did not receive a rejection after two > months; rather a reply that the article was not reviewed at all. I asked > for further clarification but none was provided, only a trite and bizarre > reply: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dear Dr. Dimetrodon (not my real name) > > I can certainly understand that you were not happy with the decision. Your > manuscript fell right on the border of what we would normally send out as > we receive many more manuscripts than we can consider for peer review, let > alone for publication. In this case, the referees either were too busy or > did not respond at all. As we chose referees who are experts in this field > and familiar with ChemPhysChem, this indicated to us that your manuscript > might not be suitable for us after all. Therefore, we decided to retrurn > your manuscript. Again, I apologise that you had to wait so long before > hearing from us. > > Best wishes > Greta Heydenrych > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Absolutely no justification for delaying my manuscript was given. > Moreover, she "commiserates" with me being unhappy with the non-existent > decicion! > > And here is the first communication, sent after two months after my > submission: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dear Dr. Dimetrodon, > > Thank you for your letter and the above-mentioned manuscript received on > 25.11.2013. > > We are truly sorry to have to inform you that we are unable to accept your > manuscript for publication. Our policy is to publish contributions of > current general interest or of great significance to a more specialized > readership. Our impression is that a computational chemistry journal would > be a better forum for your work. > > We did send your manuscript to several referees, but none of them were > willing to review it for ChemPhysChem, which confirms our initial > impression that your manuscript might find a more receptive audience with a > more specialized journal. Therefore we now return your manuscript without > waiting any longer. > > We are truly sorry that we cannot at this time give a more positive reply > and we sincerely hope that this will not deter you from submitting further > manuscripts to ChemPhysChem. > > Sincerely yours, > > Dr. Greta Heydenrych > > ChemPhysChem > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The editor makes the ludicrous claim that a more specialized journal is > needed. She needed two months to determine that? > > I certainly believe that something sinister is behind it. In any case, the > responsible person appears to be the Editor regardless of what else is > behind it. I think that people who are in these posts while not being > active researchers can be easily manipulated by others. > > I am using a pseudonym here. My article was submitted immediately to > Chemical Physics, unchanged, and accepted soon afterwards. I do not want to > reveal my identity but I will say that I am the only author. Probably my > former boss, who refused to associate himself with the paper, and who > really had minimal involvement in it, is behind this. He had some kind of > petty personal grudge against me and didn't want to be on the paper. > > I did not think of complaining to the publisher. I will try that. It would > be nice to avoid such things in the future. I thank Marcel Swart for noting > that it is common for some journals to appoint editors who are not active > scientists. I think that this makes them easier to manipulate. > > Thanks!> > > --089e01538de03123a604f8989118 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dr. Dimetrodon,

The system is imperfect= , but generally you get better results if you work with it than against it.=

It's relatively common for reviewers and edit= ors to claim a manuscript is better suited for a 'more specialized jour= nal'.

Yes, it's really just an excuse, and most of the ti= me it's completely unjustified.

However, there= is essentially no point in trying to argue with the editors.

If a journal rejects a manuscript, whether for a good or dub= ious reason, just revise it the best you can and resubmit it to another jou= rnal.

If your work is good and becomes highly cite= d, eventually the journals will start to catch on after a few years.

Tom Manz
assistant professor, chemical & = materials engineering
New Mexico State University =C2=A0


On Sun= , May 4, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz:_:hotmail.com <owner-chemistry**ccl.net> wro= te:

Sent to CCL by: "Demetra =C2=A0Dimetrodon" [dpfiz ~ hotmail.com]

Dear Dr. Petitjean,

Thanks for your reply. Certainly, I did not receive a rejection after two m= onths; rather a reply that the article was not reviewed at all. I asked for= further clarification but none was provided, only a trite and bizarre repl= y:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Dr. Dimetrodon (not my real name)

I can certainly understand that you were not happy with the decision. Your = manuscript fell right on the border of what we would normally send out as w= e receive many more manuscripts than we can consider for peer review, let a= lone for publication. In this case, the referees either were too busy or di= d not respond at all. As we chose referees who are experts in this field an= d familiar with ChemPhysChem, this indicated to us that your manuscript mig= ht not be suitable for us after all. Therefore, we decided to retrurn your = manuscript. Again, I apologise that you had to wait so long before hearing = > from us.

Best wishes
Greta Heydenrych
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Absolutely no justification for delaying my manuscript was given. Moreover,= she "commiserates" with me being unhappy with the non-existent d= ecicion!

And here is the first communication, sent after two months after my submiss= ion:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Dr. Dimetrodon,

Thank you for your letter and the above-mentioned manuscript received on 25= .11.2013.

We are truly sorry to have to inform you that we are unable to accept your = manuscript for publication. Our policy is to publish contributions of curre= nt general interest or of great significance to a more specialized readersh= ip. Our impression is that a computational chemistry journal would be a bet= ter forum for your work.

We did send your manuscript to several referees, but none of them were will= ing to review it for ChemPhysChem, which confirms our initial impression th= at your manuscript might find a more receptive audience with a more special= ized =C2=A0journal. Therefore we now return your manuscript without waiting= any longer.

We are truly sorry that we cannot at this time give a more positive reply a= nd we sincerely hope that this will not deter you from submitting further m= anuscripts to ChemPhysChem.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Greta Heydenrych

ChemPhysChem
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The editor makes the ludicrous claim that a more specialized journal is nee= ded. She needed two months to determine that?

I certainly believe that something sinister is behind it. In any case, the = responsible person appears to be the Editor regardless of what else is behi= nd it. I think that people who are in these posts while not being active re= searchers can be easily manipulated by others.

I am using a pseudonym here. My article was submitted immediately to Chemic= al Physics, unchanged, and accepted soon afterwards. I do not want to revea= l my identity but I will say that I am the only author. Probably my former = boss, who refused to associate himself with the paper, and who really had m= inimal involvement in it, is behind this. He had some kind of petty persona= l grudge against me and didn't want to be on the paper.

I did not think of complaining to the publisher. I will try that. It would = be nice to avoid such things in the future. I thank Marcel Swart for noting= that it is common for some journals to appoint editors who are not active = scientists. I think that this makes them easier to manipulate.

Thanks!



-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-=
E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY**ccl.n= et or use:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message=

E-mail to administrators: CHEM= ISTRY-REQUEST**ccl.net or use
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message=

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.n= et/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/co= nferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/



--089e01538de03123a604f8989118-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 22:09:00 2014 From: "Suman Layek slayek[A]udcoled.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: Gaussian/Computer related question Message-Id: <-50018-140504170239-706-MNsapGeKf/jdo9334B+1Dg a server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Suman Layek Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 21:02:22 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Suman Layek [slayek * udcoled.com] Hello Fabio, 1) It can use multicore processors. 2) Spec has nothing to do with the budget and without that, it is hard to offer you any suggestion. Once upon a time I used to run G09 in dual hexacore xeon workstation under Windows7. ________________________________________ > From: owner-chemistry+slayek==universaldisplay.com|,|ccl.net [owner-chemistry+slayek==universaldisplay.com|,|ccl.net] on behalf of Fabio Cardenas fabiocarden{:}gmail.com [owner-chemistry|,|ccl.net] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 6:24 AM To: Suman Layek Subject: CCL:G: Gaussian/Computer related question Sent to CCL by: "Fabio Cardenas" [fabiocarden++gmail.com] Dear CCL users, As member of a small community college I am very exited that we received Gaussian 09 and GV5 for Windows OS as a Donation. I have use the software in the past on a computer center and I find it very helpful for my research. However, I have never use the software to run directly on a Windows computer. Since the IT shop people in our department are not familiar with the software, I have few questions that I was hopping you could help me answer. Taking into account that the type of calculations we would run are on organic small molecules (ground states, Transition states, TDDFT and similar) and are not high performance computer demanding, we will probably use medium size level such b3lyp/6-31g(d,p), then the questions are: 1. If we buy a multicore processor (quad core for example) can the software use all cores without the installation of any extra software? 2. Are there any specifications on the computer hardware and software that you would recommend.http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 22:44:00 2014 From: "Ahmed E. Ismail aei]-[alum.mit.edu" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50019-140504170246-848-s0kGHJ+EP7T8BWxHKdgXlQ^^^server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Ahmed E. Ismail" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2da9cc09dd604f8995517 Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 23:02:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Ahmed E. Ismail" [aei**alum.mit.edu] --001a11c2da9cc09dd604f8995517 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Dr. Dimetrodon: Put yourself in the position of a journal editor. You want each paper, for a journal such as ChemPhysChem, to have at least two or three reviewers. Typically, you will want at least two or three reviews for a given paper. However, if you send out 2N invitations simultaneously, then you end up possibly having more people agree to review the paper than you need=E2=80= =94and then you might end up having to withdraw the invitation to review. This is especially problematic if your publishing platform allows potential reviewers to access the paper BEFORE the request to review has been accepted, since now people who aren't participating in the review process can have access to the submitted article. You also don't want to be rude to reviewers and send them requests every day for them to return a request. So you might wait for 5 to 7 days before sending a reminder email, and then another week before moving on to the next potential reviewers. So that means you basically have to wait for the first batch of requests before the next can be sent out. That can take several weeks, and if this process is repeated two or three times, that easily accounts for two months. And this doesn't even take into account the possibility that someone agreed to review, then failed to turn in their review in a timely manner. I had a very similar experience with a journal, where the paper was returned after about a month with a rejection on "poor fit for journal"-like grounds, that ended up being accepted as is in another journal. It happens, and it's not a sign of a conspiracy. There is very likely nothing sinister going on here. =E2=80=94AEI On 4 May 2014 10:16, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz:_:hotmail.com < owner-chemistry=-=ccl.net> wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Demetra Dimetrodon" [dpfiz ~ hotmail.com] > > Dear Dr. Petitjean, > > Thanks for your reply. Certainly, I did not receive a rejection after two > months; rather a reply that the article was not reviewed at all. I asked > for further clarification but none was provided, only a trite and bizarre > reply: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dear Dr. Dimetrodon (not my real name) > > I can certainly understand that you were not happy with the decision. You= r > manuscript fell right on the border of what we would normally send out as > we receive many more manuscripts than we can consider for peer review, le= t > alone for publication. In this case, the referees either were too busy or > did not respond at all. As we chose referees who are experts in this fiel= d > and familiar with ChemPhysChem, this indicated to us that your manuscript > might not be suitable for us after all. Therefore, we decided to retrurn > your manuscript. Again, I apologise that you had to wait so long before > hearing from us. > > Best wishes > Greta Heydenrych > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Absolutely no justification for delaying my manuscript was given. > Moreover, she "commiserates" with me being unhappy with the non-existent > decicion! > > And here is the first communication, sent after two months after my > submission: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dear Dr. Dimetrodon, > > Thank you for your letter and the above-mentioned manuscript received on > 25.11.2013. > > We are truly sorry to have to inform you that we are unable to accept you= r > manuscript for publication. Our policy is to publish contributions of > current general interest or of great significance to a more specialized > readership. Our impression is that a computational chemistry journal woul= d > be a better forum for your work. > > We did send your manuscript to several referees, but none of them were > willing to review it for ChemPhysChem, which confirms our initial > impression that your manuscript might find a more receptive audience with= a > more specialized journal. Therefore we now return your manuscript withou= t > waiting any longer. > > We are truly sorry that we cannot at this time give a more positive reply > and we sincerely hope that this will not deter you from submitting furthe= r > manuscripts to ChemPhysChem. > > Sincerely yours, > > Dr. Greta Heydenrych > > ChemPhysChem > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The editor makes the ludicrous claim that a more specialized journal is > needed. She needed two months to determine that? > > I certainly believe that something sinister is behind it. In any case, th= e > responsible person appears to be the Editor regardless of what else is > behind it. I think that people who are in these posts while not being > active researchers can be easily manipulated by others. > > I am using a pseudonym here. My article was submitted immediately to > Chemical Physics, unchanged, and accepted soon afterwards. I do not want = to > reveal my identity but I will say that I am the only author. Probably my > former boss, who refused to associate himself with the paper, and who > really had minimal involvement in it, is behind this. He had some kind of > petty personal grudge against me and didn't want to be on the paper. > > I did not think of complaining to the publisher. I will try that. It woul= d > be nice to avoid such things in the future. I thank Marcel Swart for noti= ng > that it is common for some journals to appoint editors who are not active > scientists. I think that this makes them easier to manipulate. > > Thanks! > > > > -=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script = =3D-> > > --=20 =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 Ahmed E. Ismail aei=-=alum.mit.edu aei=-=aya.yale.edu --001a11c2da9cc09dd604f8995517 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Dr. Dimetrodon:

Put yourself in the position of a journal editor. You= want each paper, for a journal such as ChemPhysChem, to have at least two = or three reviewers. Typically, you will want at least two or three reviews = for a given paper. However, if you send out 2N invitations simultaneously, = then you end up possibly having more people agree to review the paper than = you need=E2=80=94and then you might end up having to withdraw the invitatio= n to review. This is especially problematic if your publishing platform all= ows potential reviewers to access the paper BEFORE the request to review ha= s been accepted, since now people who aren't participating in the revie= w process can have access to the submitted article.

You also don't want to be rude to = reviewers and send them requests every day for them to return a request. So= you might wait for 5 to 7 days before sending a reminder email, and then a= nother week before moving on to the next potential reviewers.

So that means you basically have to wait for= =20 the first batch of requests before the next can be sent out. That can=20 take several weeks, and if this process is repeated two or three times,=20 that easily accounts for two months. And this doesn't even take into ac= count the possibility that someone agreed to review, then failed to turn in= their review in a timely manner.

I had a very similar experience w= ith a journal, where the paper was returned after about a month with a reje= ction on "poor fit for journal"-like grounds, that ended up being= accepted as is in another journal. It happens, and it's not a sign of = a conspiracy. There is very likely nothing sinister going on here.

=E2=80=94AEI


On 4 May 2014 10:16, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz:_:hotmail.com <owner-chemistry=-=ccl.net> wrote:

Sent to CCL by: "Demetra =C2=A0Dimetrodon" [dpfiz ~ hotmail.com]

Dear Dr. Petitjean,

Thanks for your reply. Certainly, I did not receive a rejection after two m= onths; rather a reply that the article was not reviewed at all. I asked for= further clarification but none was provided, only a trite and bizarre repl= y:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Dr. Dimetrodon (not my real name)

I can certainly understand that you were not happy with the decision. Your = manuscript fell right on the border of what we would normally send out as w= e receive many more manuscripts than we can consider for peer review, let a= lone for publication. In this case, the referees either were too busy or di= d not respond at all. As we chose referees who are experts in this field an= d familiar with ChemPhysChem, this indicated to us that your manuscript mig= ht not be suitable for us after all. Therefore, we decided to retrurn your = manuscript. Again, I apologise that you had to wait so long before hearing = > from us.

Best wishes
Greta Heydenrych
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Absolutely no justification for delaying my manuscript was given. Moreover,= she "commiserates" with me being unhappy with the non-existent d= ecicion!

And here is the first communication, sent after two months after my submiss= ion:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Dr. Dimetrodon,

Thank you for your letter and the above-mentioned manuscript received on 25= .11.2013.

We are truly sorry to have to inform you that we are unable to accept your = manuscript for publication. Our policy is to publish contributions of curre= nt general interest or of great significance to a more specialized readersh= ip. Our impression is that a computational chemistry journal would be a bet= ter forum for your work.

We did send your manuscript to several referees, but none of them were will= ing to review it for ChemPhysChem, which confirms our initial impression th= at your manuscript might find a more receptive audience with a more special= ized =C2=A0journal. Therefore we now return your manuscript without waiting= any longer.

We are truly sorry that we cannot at this time give a more positive reply a= nd we sincerely hope that this will not deter you from submitting further m= anuscripts to ChemPhysChem.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Greta Heydenrych

ChemPhysChem
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The editor makes the ludicrous claim that a more specialized journal is nee= ded. She needed two months to determine that?

I certainly believe that something sinister is behind it. In any case, the = responsible person appears to be the Editor regardless of what else is behi= nd it. I think that people who are in these posts while not being active re= searchers can be easily manipulated by others.

I am using a pseudonym here. My article was submitted immediately to Chemic= al Physics, unchanged, and accepted soon afterwards. I do not want to revea= l my identity but I will say that I am the only author. Probably my former = boss, who refused to associate himself with the paper, and who really had m= inimal involvement in it, is behind this. He had some kind of petty persona= l grudge against me and didn't want to be on the paper.

I did not think of complaining to the publisher. I will try that. It would = be nice to avoid such things in the future. I thank Marcel Swart for noting= that it is common for some journals to appoint editors who are not active = scientists. I think that this makes them easier to manipulate.

Thanks!



-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-=
E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY=-=ccl.n= et or use:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message=

E-mail to administrators: CHEM= ISTRY-REQUEST=-=ccl.net or use
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message=

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.n= et/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/co= nferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/





--
=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
Ahmed= E. Ismail
aei=-=alum.mit.edu
<= a href=3D"mailto:aei=-=aya.yale.edu">aei=-=aya.yale.edu
--001a11c2da9cc09dd604f8995517-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 23:19:00 2014 From: "Robert Molt r.molt.chemical.physics{=}gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50020-140504173655-32678-vOmPpP6GxNqDAzwcAwuqhw+*+server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Robert Molt Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030203050902020908050006" Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 17:36:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Robert Molt [r.molt.chemical.physics\a/gmail.com] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030203050902020908050006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well said, "Tarzan P." I understand arguments as to why keeping reviewers anonymous is fine, but I see no justification for why the reviewers should see the author's name. Has an argument yet been given? Prestige matters. Meritocracy would seemingly be served by having no names on either side or names on both. Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D. r.molt.chemical.physics(a)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 8:53 AM, tarzan p tarzan11_11#yahoo.com wrote: > Dear All... > After having initiated the dialogue .. and reading the replies by lots > of people and couple who are themselves editors and reviewers and some > from whom I learn a lot reading their papers .. > Want to share a personal experience ..: > My benevolent boss asked me to go ahead and submit a single author > paper to boost my job prospectus... I submitted .. zoop.. rejected by > editor himself with out going for a review ... Journal B.. zoop again > rejected by editor himself ... Not withstanding this .. I added my > boss name .. journal C ( I pushed it to a journal .. which I never > thought it will get through ..) .. done... went for a review and got > accepted after minor revisions as suggested by two reviewers ... > This many people will write off .. saying that this happed with me > also .. two journals reject and a third might accept ..so what big deal .. > I want to quote Mikael Johansson reply > "But for younger researchers, it could be beneficial, both in removing > some of the possible bias against their work, as well as in perhaps > making them (us) feel more confident about the fairness of the system." > > It did make me feel .. "Is the reviewing process being fair or not ...??" > A few things: > 1. Only a handful of reviewers sign their names and I think it will > take a long time for that to happen unless it becomes mandatory ... > As an author .. I am interested in constructive criticism .. and am > not interested to know who reviewed it .. and I am least concerned if > someone signs it or not .... I would like to know if some one thinks > otherwise .. why does he want to know who reviewed his paper .. ?? > 2. Many said "double blind is a joke" as any competent reviewer gets > to know whose paper is it .. .... OK let him guess ..but why tell him > aprior ..? > 3. It makes NO good/bad to the reviewer to know the author ... but it > MIGHT effect the author, if the reviewer gets to know his name .. > some of you might think I am not right .. but still ...Why not give > the benefit of doubt to the diligent author ... > After all this .. > To have an close to unbiased process... > what is the loss/problem for the editors to adopt a policy of > nondisclosure of the author's name to the reviewer if it is going to > bring more fairness to the system .... > > cheers !!! > > > On Sunday, 4 May 2014, 4:30, Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com > wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com] > " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." > > Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the > defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. > > I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews. > I applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so. > > Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and > integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions. To > do otherwise smacks of pusillanimity. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net] On Behalf Of > Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral::gmail.com > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM > To: Kress, Jim > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] As a > past editor-in-chief of two journals, please let me add a reason why > anonymous review is useful. > Often, authors are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes the editor is > hassled by unhappy authors (fortunately, not often). > It is part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I did > that). > But imagine what could happen when a non anonymous reviewer is hassled > by the author? > You know, editors receive contributions from very diverse authors, not > all fair, and even from sects (yes indeed). > Remember that reviewers are volounteers and benevolent. > If they should face to such authors, imagine the consequences, not > only for the reviewers themselves, but for all the scientific > community: would reviewers still accept to help? > I agree that anonymous review can be criticized, but until now it has > more advantages than drawbacks. > About the double blind review, most time it is not useful, and this is > discussed on the websites cited in a previous post. > Nevertheless, possibly it could make sense for some maths journals, > eventually as an author choice. > May be that should be experienced. > > All my best, > > Michel Petitjean > MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7, > 35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. > Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 > E-mail: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred), > michel.petitjean * univ-paris-diderot.fr > http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html > > 2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com > : > > > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com] Why should the > > names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only reasonable, given > > the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays > > "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who > > reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on > > the topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political > > views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny > > publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward > you and/or your politics. > > > > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is > > not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. > > > > Jim Kress > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net > > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of > > tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM > > To: Kress, Jim > > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > > > > Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] Dear All........ > > It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to > > journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are > confidential. Justified. > > But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and > > his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! > > Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? > > Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of > > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? > > > > I hope to get some views..... > > with best wishes and happy computing > > ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/ > > > chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt> the strange characters on the top line to the !=! sign. You can also > > E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY!=!ccl.net > or use:> > E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST!=!ccl.net > or use> > > > --------------030203050902020908050006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well said, "Tarzan P."  I understand arguments as to why keeping reviewers anonymous is fine, but I see no justification for why the reviewers should see the author's name.  Has an argument yet been given?

Prestige matters.  Meritocracy would seemingly be served by having no names on either side or names on both.
Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.
r.molt.chemical.physics(a)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 8:53 AM, tarzan p tarzan11_11#yahoo.com wrote:
Dear All...
After having initiated the dialogue .. and reading the replies by lots of people and couple who are themselves editors and reviewers and some from whom I learn a lot reading their papers ..
Want to share a personal experience ..:
My benevolent boss asked me to go ahead and submit a single author paper to boost my job prospectus...  I submitted .. zoop.. rejected by editor himself  with out going for a review ... Journal B.. zoop again rejected by editor himself ... Not withstanding this .. I added my boss name .. journal C ( I pushed it to a journal .. which I never thought it will get through ..) .. done... went for a review and got accepted after minor revisions as suggested by two reviewers ...
This many people will write off .. saying that this happed with me also .. two journals reject and a third might accept ..so what big deal ..
I want to quote Mikael Johansson reply
"But for younger researchers, it could be beneficial, both in removing some of the possible bias against their work, as well as in perhaps making them (us) feel more confident about the  fairness of the system."

It did make me feel .. "Is the reviewing process being fair or not ...??"
A few things:
1. Only a handful of reviewers sign their names and I think it will take a long time for that to happen unless it becomes mandatory ...
As an author .. I am interested in constructive criticism .. and am not interested to know who reviewed it .. and I am least concerned if someone signs it or not  .... I would like to know if some one thinks otherwise .. why does he want to know who reviewed his paper .. ??
2. Many said "double blind is a joke" as any competent reviewer gets to know whose paper is it .. .... OK let him guess ..but why tell him aprior ..?
3. It makes NO good/bad to the reviewer to know the author ... but it MIGHT effect the author, if the reviewer gets to know his name  .. some of you might think I am not right .. but still ...Why not give the benefit of doubt to the diligent author ...
After all this ..
To have an close to unbiased process...
what is the loss/problem for the editors to adopt a policy of nondisclosure of the author's name to the reviewer if it is going to bring more fairness to the system ....

cheers !!!



--------------030203050902020908050006-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sun May 4 23:54:00 2014 From: "Laurence Cuffe cuffe~~mac.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50021-140504174248-4860-BSd8U1Mt5/y4jspX7c3bew]~[server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Laurence Cuffe Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_EyQPJw6SSV1diZvJYXIgCg)" Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 21:42:39 +0000 (GMT) MIME-version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Laurence Cuffe [cuffe|*|mac.com] --Boundary_(ID_EyQPJw6SSV1diZvJYXIgCg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear Prof Bagaturyants,=0AThere are technical and legal reasons for this n= ot being in the strict sense a moderated list. A search of the archives ma= y locate them.=0A=EF=BB=BF I don't think there is anything too sinister ab= out the fact that the author of the post does not show up on the web. They= may not be doing work of publishable quality, or they may not be establis= hed yet.=0ATo me, the first letter sounded inexperienced, rather than mali= cious. I think any of us reading the response of the editor in question wo= uld feel that this was a polite and not untimely rejection of a piece or r= esearch.=0AIt does not, to my mind, reflect poorly on the editor in questi= on.=0AAll the best=0ADr Laurence Cuffe=0A=0ASent from QCloud=0A=0A=0AOn Ma= y 04, 2014, at 09:41 PM, "Alexander Bagaturyants sasha-x-photonics.ru" wrote:=0A=0A> Sorry for the repeat posting:=0A>=0A>= Dear CCL colleagues,=0A>=0A> That's a pity that social problems excite a = broader and hotter discussion than scientific ones.=0A>=0A> Not speaking a= bout the fact that all this turmoil was initiated by a completely dishones= t and offensive message from a nonexistent author hiding behind a strange = pseudonym "Demetra Dimetrodon". =0A>=0A> I tried to find this name in the = internet, but failed. There is no mentioning of such an author in the Web = of Science. In this message this personage accuses a very respectable jour= nal and one of its editors in open and in a rather offensive manner withou= t signing by its own real name.=0A>=0A> I believe that such messages MUST = be strictly filtered by the moderator.=0A>=0A> I have no relation with the= ChemPhysChem journal and moreover with this poor editor (I would not like= to mention her name again without a reason). However, all my life I have = been profoundly respecting both the reviewers and editors of scientific jo= urnals. Even when their criticism seems to me not quite justified, I consi= der it as a means of improving my articles and my work. Therefore, I consi= der this discussion as completely irrelevant.=0A>=0A> I hate the idea of "= politicization" or even socialization of our scientific list. This may res= ult in flooding our respectable CCL with spam and even with scam.=0A>=0A> = Sorry if my letter seems to be too sharp, but I strongly hate SPAM in my m= ailbox.=0A>=0A> All the best to all my actually working colleagues and let= us return to science.=0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> Prof. Alexander A. Bagaturyants=0A= >=0A> Photochemistry Center=0A>=0A> Russian Academy of Sciences=0A>=0A> ul= . Novatorov 7a, b. 1=0A>=0A> Moscow 119421 Russia=0A>=0A> Phone: +7(495)93= 62588 (office)=0A>=0A> +7(916)5317022 (mobile)=0A>=0A> Fax: +7(49= 5)9361255=0A>=0A> e-mail: sasha{ihotonics.ru=0A> =0A>=0A> bag= aturyants{pmail.com=0A> =0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> From: owner-chemistr= y+bagaturyants=3D=3Dgmail.com{lcl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+bagaturyants= =3D=3Dgmail.com{lcl.net] On Behalf Of Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.= com=0A> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 5:55 AM=0A> To: Bagaturyants, Alexander= =0A> Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning=0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> I vote for the = "triple-blind" review: Nobody knows the reviewers, the authors, or the edi= tors!=0A>=0A> On 5/3/2014 3:11 PM, Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat w= rote:=0A>=0A> I just wanted to add that highly high-profile journals l= ike Angewandte,=0A>=0A> Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* = active in research,=0A>=0A> but I would doubt seriously that this woul= d make them incompetent.=0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> Like Michel said, two m= onths is nothing, it is not unusual to have a=0A>=0A> period of betwee= n 2 months and one year between first submission=0A>=0A> and final acc= eptance. It reminds me of an Editorial I=E2=80=99ve recently read,=0A>=0A>= about how to write a paper and how to deal with the reviewing process= .=0A>=0A> See: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cm501152b=0A> = =0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> Good luck with the paper!=0A>=0A> =0A>=0A>= Marcel=0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> On 2014-05-03, at 09:13, Demetra Dim= etrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com wrote:=0A>=0A>=0A>= =0A> Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could= result =0A> in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific resul= ts - in my case two =0A> months. Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChe= m does not appear to be =0A> active in research at all, something whic= h is completely unheard of for a high-=0A> profile journal.=0A>=0A> = ----------=0A> Demetra Dimetrodon=0A>=0A> =0A>=0A>=0A> =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=0A> Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart=0A>=0A> ICREA = Research Professor at=0A> Institut de Qu=C3=ADmica Computacional i Cat= =C3=A0lisi=0A> Universitat de Girona=0A>=0A> Facultat de Ci=C3=A8n= cies=0A> Campus Montilivi=0A> 17071 Girona=0A> Catalunya (Spai= n)=0A>=0A> tel=0A> +34-972-418861=0A> fax=0A> +34-972-4183= 56=0A> e-mail=0A> marcel.swart---icrea.cat=0A> marcel.swart---= udg.edu=0A> web=0A> http://www.marcelswart.eu=0A> vCard=0A>=0A= > addressbook://www.marcelswart.eu/MSwart.vcf=0A> =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=0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> =0A>=0A= >=0A>=0A>=0A> -- =0A> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=0A> ..........= Sebastian Kozuch...........=0A> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=0A> = ......University of North Texas......=0A> ..........Denton, Texas, USA....= .....=0A> ........ seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com .......=0A> http://yfaat.ch.huj= i.ac.il/kozuch.htm=0A> =0A> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx= --Boundary_(ID_EyQPJw6SSV1diZvJYXIgCg) Content-type: multipart/related; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ZS38X2jr9v/Eh7hTucbH4A)"; type="text/html" --Boundary_(ID_ZS38X2jr9v/Eh7hTucbH4A) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Prof Bagaturyants,
There are technical and legal reasons for = this not being in the strict sense a moderated list. A search of the archi= ves may locate them.
 I don't think there is anything too sinister= about the fact that the author of the post does not show up on the web. T= hey may not be doing work of publishable quality, or they may not be estab= lished yet.
To me, the first letter sounded inexperienced, rather than= malicious. I think any of us reading the response of the editor in questi= on would feel that this was a polite and not untimely rejection of a piece= or research.
It does not, to my mind, reflect poorly on the editor in = question.
All the best
Dr Laurence Cuffe
Sent from QCloud
On May 04, 2014, at 09:41 PM, "Alexander Bagaturyants sasha-x-photonics.r= u" <owner-chemistry]_[ccl.net> wrote:

Sorry for the repeat posting:<= /span>

Dear CCL colleagu= es,

That's a pity= that social problems excite a broader and hotter discussion than scientif= ic ones.

Not spe= aking about the fact that all this turmoil was initiated by a completely d= ishonest and offensive message from a nonexistent author hiding behind a s= trange pseudonym "Demetra Dimetrodon". 

I tried to find this name in the internet, bu= t failed. There is no mentioning of such an author in the Web of Science. = In this message this personage accuses a very respectable journal and one = of its editors in open and in a rather offensive manner without signing by= its own real name.

I believe that such messages MUST be strictly filtered by the moderato= r.

I have no rel= ation with the ChemPhysChem journal and moreover with this poor editor (I = would not like to mention her name again without a reason). However, all m= y life I have been profoundly respecting both the reviewers and editors of= scientific journals. Even when their criticism seems to me not quite just= ified, I consider it as a means of improving my articles and my work. Ther= efore, I consider this discussion as completely irrelevant.

I hate the idea of "politicizat= ion" or even socialization of our scientific list. This may result in floo= ding our respectable CCL with spam and even with scam.

Sorry if my letter seems to be too = sharp, but I strongly hate SPAM in my mailbox.

All the best to all my actually working coll= eagues and let us return to science.

<= span lang=3D"EN-US"> 

Prof. Alexander A. Bagaturyants

Photochemistry Center

Russian Academy of Sciences

ul. Novatorov 7a, b. 1

Moscow 119421 Russia

Phone: +7(495)9362588 (of= fice)

  = ;     +7(916)5317022 (mobile)

Fax:   +7(495)9361255

e-mail:   sasha{ihotonics.ru

 

          bagaturyants{pmail.com

 

 

 

= From: owner-chemistry+baga= turyants=3D=3Dgmail.com{lcl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+bagaturyants=3D=3D= gmail.com{lcl.net] On Behalf Of Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozu= ch*_*gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 5:55 AM
<= strong>To: Bagaturyants, Alexander
Subject: = CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning

&n= bsp;

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

On 5/3/201= 4 3:11 PM, Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat wrote:

I just wanted t= o add that highly high-profile journals like Angewandte,

Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in resear= ch,

but I would doubt seriously that = this would make them incompetent.

&nb= sp;

Like Michel said, two months is n= othing, it is not unusual to have a

p= eriod of between 2 months and one year between first submission

<= div>

and final acceptance. It reminds me of an Edito= rial I=92ve 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

 

&nb= sp;

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 resul= t 
in a huge delay in= dissemination of your scientific results - in my case two 
months. Then again, the editor of C= hemPhysChem does not appear to be&nb= sp;
active in research at all, something which is completely unh= eard of for a high-
profile journal.

----------
Demetra Dimet= rodon

 


<= span class=3D"apple-style-span">=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=EDmica Computacional i Cat=E0lisi=
Universitat de Girona
Facultat de Ci=E8ncies
Campus Montilivi
17071 Girona
C= atalunya (Spain)

tel=
+34-972-418861
fax
+34-972-= 418356
e-mail
marcel.swart---icrea.cat=
marcel.swart---udg.edu<= br>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

 

 

 

 




-- 
xxxxxxxxxxx=
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..........Sebastian Kozuch...........=

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
......Universit=
y of North Texas......
..........Denton, Texas, USA.........
........ seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com ....=
...
http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/k=
ozuch.htm
 
=
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
=
= --Boundary_(ID_ZS38X2jr9v/Eh7hTucbH4A)-- --Boundary_(ID_EyQPJw6SSV1diZvJYXIgCg)--