Praise for the RATE Group

You know it's a funny thing about those journals. I have recent experiences with both of them. One is personal and the others are anecdotal from a colleague of mine. My article concerned a triggering mechanism for the Snowball Earth and it went through 3 reviews and a final editorial review. It was initially rejected by Science without review. A friend of mine just had an article rejected by Science without review and another's article went through review by Nature and was summarily turned down (the oldest evidence for life on land). I also recall an earlier article I published in Nature (1993) and it went through 2 reviews before acceptance. The reviews are highly critical and you must pursue the research with some confidence. If you think you have something, then you've got to push it through and defend the science. I have another article that will be submitted to Science here in a month or so. It is likely to get rejected, but worth a shot. Some people I know consider it an honor to simply have an article undergo review by those two journals. Creationists need to develop a tough skin if they are ever going to make a change. JP knows absolutely nothing about publishing so anything he says should be taken as Monday morning quarterbacking by someone who never watches football.CheersJoe Meert

I feel for you Joe. I just had a paper rejected as well. It is frustrating, but it lets you know that the field of science is still kicking along.I do have to say that it makes me sick to hear creationist cry rape every time their papers are rejected when us non-creationists in non-evolutionary fields are having our papers rejected as well. Maybe we should start sending our papers to creationist journals, their peer review system seems a bit more lax .

Meert:
JP knows absolutely nothing about publishing so anything he says should be taken as Monday morning quarterbacking by someone who never watches football.John Paul:
More baseless and unsubstantiated spewage from the pro of spewage. JM knows absolutely nothing about me so anything he says about me should be taken as meaningless.skl

It doesn't matter if you are talking peer reviewed journals or publishers. If you are a writer, you need to be able to accept rejection. You know that you are beginning to get somewhere when your rejections are handwritten and with comments.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I know two things about you JP that are fairly uncontroversial1. You are not a scientist
2. You do not publish in scientific journals.CheersJoe Meert

Meert:
I know two things about you JP that are fairly uncontroversialJohn Paul:
Yup, sure you do.Meert:
1. You are not a scientistJohn Paul:
Funny, I fit the definition and I do actual research. Go figure...Meert:
2. You do not publish in scientific journals.John Paul:
That is irrelevant.skl

I would be interested in hearing more about your scientific work.--Percy

Most of my scientific work is in the venue of research & development (technology), ion mobility spectrometry and communications. For example did you know that if you switch the Rx & Tx local ocillators on a CB (for example) you will get frequencies below the current band. No one else is down there so the reception/ transmission is clear.

I also know you're a handsome fellow, but you really should remove that tatoo. It makes you look like a dork. Publishing ones research findings is quite relevant. It gives you some feedback on the quality of your science. From your description, you are more of an engineer than a scientist.CheersJoe Meert

What you describe sounds like an engineer.Many fields borrow the terminology of science. Like scientists, engineers have their own journals and conferences. Many in my field call themselves computer scientists and work in R&D departments, but that doesn't mean they're scientists or that they do scientific research.--Percy

Percy, considering most of what I do and have done is classified I cannot go in to details.Quick definitions (Scientist)noun: a person with advanced knowledge of one of more sciencesEncyclopedia articleA scientist is a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methods in research.Yup, that fits me.What do you think makes one a scientist?

Meert:
I also know you're a handsome fellow, but you really should remove that tatoo.John Paul:
I know I am but you wouldn't. And my tatoos are staying.Meert:
It makes you look like a dork.John Paul:
That's not my picture. I have never been that fat or ugly in my life. Meert:
Publishing ones research findings is quite relevant. It gives you some feedback on the quality of your science.John Paul:
The quality of my science comes out in practical uses. If my science was bad my projects would fail. That is all the review I need.Many engineers, like myself, are both scientist & engineer. We have to do leading edge research and then develop those ideas for practical use.[This message has been edited by John Paul, 04-30-2004]

Your short definitions of scientist describe half the people I know, and none of them are scientists.As Joe and I have said, your description appears to be of an engineer. But it's the impression you give others that counts. If you want to be thought of as a scientist then you might try behaving as one.--Percy

Percy:
Your short definitions of scientist describe half the people I know, and none of them are scientists.John Paul:
I asked what you consider a scientist....Percy:
But it's the impression you give others that counts.John Paul:
Not really. It's the work and research I do that counts. I don't care what people I don't know think about me. Also if what you say has any merit I have yet to see a "scientist" on this board.How do scientists behave? I know quite a few...

quote:

---

Encyclopedia article

​

A scientist is a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methods in research.

​

Yup, that fits me.

​

What do you think makes one a scientist?

---

In the context of publishing scientific articles, a scientist is a person that ADDS new things to a scientific field (ie new information or knowledge). A person that uses existing knowledge and does not increase our knowledge of a scientific field is a technician or engineer. I am not saying scientists are better than engineers/technicians, but in the context of scientific publications the differences are important.Perhaps one of the biggest differences, in my opinion, is that engineers/technicians don't have to apply scientific methods that test a hypothesis. Guiding research towards a goal is a scientist's job, while engineers guide the construction of a physical thing towards a goal of completion (hope that made sense). Scientists and engineers have different goals and use different paths to get their.