1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Are science books peer reviewed?
« on: 25/10/2010 18:34:54 »
I really appreciate everyone's replies, I believe that I got the public opionions that I was seeking. I will try and be candid and brief about my statement/question; because it is two (2) fold.
1) Earlier in the year I completed a book and submited a proposal to two (2) major book publishing houses. I will not mention their names because I was not suppose to shop either one of those companies based on the 'non' disclosure that each made me sign. But I shopped anyway being smart about it. For that reason alone I won't mention their names; but they the ones that if given the opportunity most would without hesitating if they were not paying attention to the business.
The first company liked my proposal, and when we go to the finance part, they informed me that I would get about $1.00 to $1.50 per book. I though that was robbery. So I shopped to the second company, likewise they also liked my proposal and gave me an approximate number of between $1.50 and $2.00 per book. I also thought that this was robbery.
Both companies were promising limited marketing, and the way I saw it I would still be responsible for major marketing. Also based on our conversations, I could tell that if the books did not start to fly of the shelves in the first three (3) to five (5) months, they were not going to put any more marketing dollars to the project. Now if after the five (5) months the books were not leaping off the shelves I would be responsible for shelling out marketing dollars but they would get the returns and still giving me approximately ~$1.50 per book.
Basically these big publishing houses are just collecting the money and doleing out checks after they pay their bloated administration and marketing departments.
Now if that is not similar to a man "without a mask" holding a gun to your head saying "Give me your money" I don't know what is. And to make matters worse, if I wanted to obtain my own book rights, to go on my own in the future, I would have to buy the right to my book back from them.
This made the consideration of "Self Publishing" a very appealing venture to say the least!
2) By the end of the week I will be submitting two (2) papers to a very prestious journal. And because I am aware of their bias and agenda, the paper is written to get published. But at the same time you never know.
I was watching an interview on television with Peter Higgs of the Higgs Boson Mechanism and he was giving his testimony about how the paper got published. He stated that he sent his paper to a leading European Journal, and they rejected his paper. He said that his feeling were hurt, but he gathered himself and then sent the paper to a leading American Journal and the work got published. They are currently looking or will be looking for the Higgs Boson at the LHC.
So what does that mean the the European "Peer Review Gods" were wrong; And the American "Peer Review God's" were right? What if they both rejected the paper, would that same mechanism that he proposed be incorrect? This appears to me to be a bit hypocritical; and maybe he got lucky, the right set of reviewers like it maybe?
What I see coming is Amazon.com type of companies emerging (arXiv.org) where you submit your paper and PhDs and independent researchers alike can provide their comments about the paper. This would be a more through review process, however this model for "Peer Review" is very similar to Amazon.com's book review process. They provide the data space for the book or paper, and everyone that feels that they are a peer can review.
Once again thanks everyone for their post.
1) Earlier in the year I completed a book and submited a proposal to two (2) major book publishing houses. I will not mention their names because I was not suppose to shop either one of those companies based on the 'non' disclosure that each made me sign. But I shopped anyway being smart about it. For that reason alone I won't mention their names; but they the ones that if given the opportunity most would without hesitating if they were not paying attention to the business.
The first company liked my proposal, and when we go to the finance part, they informed me that I would get about $1.00 to $1.50 per book. I though that was robbery. So I shopped to the second company, likewise they also liked my proposal and gave me an approximate number of between $1.50 and $2.00 per book. I also thought that this was robbery.
Both companies were promising limited marketing, and the way I saw it I would still be responsible for major marketing. Also based on our conversations, I could tell that if the books did not start to fly of the shelves in the first three (3) to five (5) months, they were not going to put any more marketing dollars to the project. Now if after the five (5) months the books were not leaping off the shelves I would be responsible for shelling out marketing dollars but they would get the returns and still giving me approximately ~$1.50 per book.
Basically these big publishing houses are just collecting the money and doleing out checks after they pay their bloated administration and marketing departments.
Now if that is not similar to a man "without a mask" holding a gun to your head saying "Give me your money" I don't know what is. And to make matters worse, if I wanted to obtain my own book rights, to go on my own in the future, I would have to buy the right to my book back from them.
This made the consideration of "Self Publishing" a very appealing venture to say the least!
2) By the end of the week I will be submitting two (2) papers to a very prestious journal. And because I am aware of their bias and agenda, the paper is written to get published. But at the same time you never know.
I was watching an interview on television with Peter Higgs of the Higgs Boson Mechanism and he was giving his testimony about how the paper got published. He stated that he sent his paper to a leading European Journal, and they rejected his paper. He said that his feeling were hurt, but he gathered himself and then sent the paper to a leading American Journal and the work got published. They are currently looking or will be looking for the Higgs Boson at the LHC.
So what does that mean the the European "Peer Review Gods" were wrong; And the American "Peer Review God's" were right? What if they both rejected the paper, would that same mechanism that he proposed be incorrect? This appears to me to be a bit hypocritical; and maybe he got lucky, the right set of reviewers like it maybe?
What I see coming is Amazon.com type of companies emerging (arXiv.org) where you submit your paper and PhDs and independent researchers alike can provide their comments about the paper. This would be a more through review process, however this model for "Peer Review" is very similar to Amazon.com's book review process. They provide the data space for the book or paper, and everyone that feels that they are a peer can review.
Once again thanks everyone for their post.