Peer Review in Astrophysics
..........
Section 14 is concerned about the status of your research activity. It reminds you that peer review remains the basis of the validity of a theory. If your article proposals face publication difficulties, or even rejections, it is probably because there are good reasons for this. Challenging the value of these judgments by retreating outside the usual circuits of scientific evaluation will only lead to complete marginalization. This marginalization may be satisfying for you in a logic of "I am right against the entire scientific world." But it is certainly counterproductive if you want your theories to be recognized one day. Now, if these discussions show that your theories have flaws, it is your duty to accept this without indulging in a persecution complex. The development of science has been achieved through the elaboration of numerous theories, which today would make a master's student laugh, for example, the theory of the ether. Nevertheless, these theories allowed progress because their authors accepted to discuss them and acknowledge their limits. On the contrary, marginalization and refusal to discuss condemn a proposition to stagnation, or worse, to feed non-scientific antics such as Mr. Charon's pseudo-theories on the soul of the electron. It is up to you to decide in which logic you want to carry on your activities. Section 14 can only encourage you to pursue them within a scientific logic and to accept discussions with your peers.
............
Please accept, Dear Colleague, the expression of my best regards. 
François Pajot Scientific Secretary ________________________________________________________________________ Address: ** NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH **3, RUE MICHEL-ANGE 75794 PARIS CEDEX 16 TEL.01 44 96 40 00 - FAX 01 44 96 50 00
..........
Section 14 is concerned about the status of your research activity. It reminds you that peer review remains the basis of the validity of a theory. If your article proposals face publication difficulties, or even rejections, it is probably because there are good reasons for this. Challenging the value of these judgments by retreating outside the usual circuits of scientific evaluation will only lead to complete marginalization. This marginalization may be satisfying for you in a logic of "I am right against the entire scientific world." But it is certainly counterproductive if you want your theories to be recognized one day. Now, if these discussions show that your theories have flaws, it is your duty to accept this without indulging in a persecution complex. The development of science has been achieved through the elaboration of numerous theories, which today would make a master's student laugh, for example, the theory of the ether. Nevertheless, these theories allowed progress because their authors accepted to discuss them and acknowledge their limits. On the contrary, marginalization and refusal to discuss condemn a proposition to stagnation, or worse, to feed non-scientific antics such as Mr. Charon's pseudo-theories on the soul of the electron. It is up to you to decide in which logic you want to carry on your activities. Section 14 can only encourage you to pursue them within a scientific logic and to accept discussions with your peers.
............
**Counter initialized on March 5, 2004. Number of visits to this page: **** ** :