Quote:
Originally Posted by sanctus
Turtle, it is the experience of the people I'm working with (I am still working on my first article and since I am doing a PhD at a University people I work with know what they are talking about). If it is rejected, then may be you don't get feed-back, but it can also be accepted with the comments by the referee that you have to change that, that and that...
|
Well, that's my point. Getting something published in a professional journal is really not about the veracity of the math (or whatever subject), it's about the politics & money of publishing. The journals are in it for business and they have only so much space each edition and so those on the inside get an edge on that space. Then there is who reads/subscribes to these journals and again -save for someone going to a library- it is the insiders who read them.
In regard to Don's discovery and copyright, everyone owns the copyright to whatever they produce, but the problem is protecting it which means if someone violates it you have to hire a lawyer and sue. Not much different for a patent either except one has to first hire a patent attorney to search & see if it's already been done, file the patent , pay more, wait, wait, and then wait some more until someone steals the material and then you goo with the copyright deal and hire an attorney & sue.
In watching a show recently on fractals & Mandelbrot, they said the journal editors repeatedly refused his work and castigated & mocked him for his trouble ta boot. He wrote his own book & found a publisher outside academia.
In conclusion, the internet has made the world flat and the journals obsolete.
