Scroll To Top

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Where does WUWT find these Geniuses?

Sou | 5:36 PM Go to the first of 9 comments. Add a comment

Let's have a free for all.  Blog science rulez!  Anthony's latest genius who goes by the name of Abzats has just written a general whine that his latest research paper got rejected.  Well he didn't actually say that in so many words, but that's what it looks like.  His article is about peer review.  Here is a snippet:

Another problem that extremely frustrates me as an author are suggestions reviewers make on how I should improve my manuscript.
....mixed with a bit of conspiracy theorising that all those reviewers are waiting to snag his idea, and that lazy scientists are doing nothing all day and are keeping him waiting on purpose:
But, no, it has to sit for weeks on somebody’s desk. Somebody who just does not care enough. Or, worse, someone who is interested in delaying the process. The reviewer may be working on exactly the same problem and wants his paper published first.
...but finally he got to the punch line:

Ban peer review!

That's it.  No more.  Full stop.  If you were waiting for a brilliant new approach to building scientific knowledge you're out of luck this time around.  Still it was enough to draw applause from stan stendera who says:
June 25, 2013 at 12:09 am  Wow. I cannot help but agree. Where does WUWT find these geniuses?

Yep, a number of people have been puzzling over that.

PS Abetz - if you don't want peer review and would rather chuck it out than improve the process or replace it with something better, you've just got to find the right journal.

Okay I know a lot of scientists get frustrated with publishing papers.  And there are some innovative developments in many sciences, like open lab notebook.  But a whine with no suggestion other than "ban peer review"?  Dumb as.


  1. HWQDAJ - Ouch indeed! Of course, peer-review prior to publication is only the first hurdle. Some dross does get through p-r, although in some cases there seems to have been manipulation, of the process perhaps even amounting to chicanery.
    Surely the sign of a paper of high quality is the ultimate response of the scientific community. Of course the timescale may be long, but this response must surely be the true test of a paper.

    Of course we don't know from which Journal Abzats' paper was rejected, might it have been E&E or JSE?

  2. Also, as the Stoat points out, it is ironic to see Abzats complain about anonymous reviewers providing comments ("unless you plan to do something really bad, why do you insists being anonymous"). And who is Abzats again...?


  3. Abzatz also has this: “The second red flag is that none of them gets paid.”

    I wonder whether Abzatz got paid…

  4. [From Lars Karlsson] Re: Abzatz also has this: “The second red flag is that none of them gets paid.” - except he has the brass-neck to complain 'But, no, it has to sit for weeks on somebody’s desk....'

    Exactly what kind of idiot is this Abzatz?

  5. These folks ingnore the fact that they are welcome to submit their papers to conferences and present them without peer review. Of course, they can submit them to any old publication they want. Failing that, they can start their own journals. It's a free country. What they are really objecting to is that science has standards, and their garbage completely fails to meet them.


  6. I guess that Abzatz had his amazing new discovery that overturned [insert name of theory here] returned with a long list of things to improve. So instead of going away and working at it, he's decided to shout "It's not fair" like a spoiled brat. Like someone posted on WattsWrongWithThat, if this is how he writes then I'd be sending it back with the recommendation not to publish.

  7. "Another problem that extremely frustrates me as an author are suggestions reviewers make on how I should improve my manuscript."

    LOL! "How dare you make constructive suggestions about how I might improve my paper?!?!" That's hilarious. Everyone I've worked with on scientific papers, blog posts, reports, etc. has been happy to receive constructive comments from reviewers. Abzatz has some issues.

  8. Um, I thought using a handle like Abzats was the behaviour of an 'anonymous coward' at Willard Tony's?

    Ah, sorry, forgot: that only applies to warmist screen names. Right, Smokey?

    He really does seem to think that it's so unfair anyone should be able to suggest his work be altered! And clearly isn't too good on irony...

    Also -

    Only scientists for whatever bizarre reasons received a special treatment and the right to live in lawlessness.

    Lawlessness?! What, Peer Review is a throwback to Frontier Justice, or something? "You done shouldn'a robbed that mail-coach Billy-Bob - now, you best get yerself back and make these revisions..."


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.