Guest Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I would think that if the paper was in review then a journal has accepted it. Why waist time with review otherwise? Huh? Quick re(re?)summary of the publication steps in typical scientific journal = submission, rejection or decision to review it, review 1, rejection or acceptance or opportunity to revise, submission of revision, review 2, rejection or acceptance, galley proof preparation and review, page charge payment, publication. The vast majority of papers that are in review will never be published by the first journal to which they are submitted, especially if that journal is Science or Nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I appears to me that no one has confirmed that this paper has been accepted for publication. My question is why are we acting like this paper has been accepted for publication when in fact it never has been confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. For what it is worth, Matt Moneymaker confirmed that the paper had been rejected by Nature. Due to the length of time that has passed, it is safe that it has been rejected by other journals as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 This question was asked on Dr. K's FB page. Many have interpreted the creation of this page as well as the apparently definitive statements you are making about BF as signs that the publication process is drawing to a close, and your findings will be public sooner rather than later. If you can comment, how accurate do you consider this interpretation to be? Sally R's answer was. Sally responding - That is a logical interpretation. However, the peer-review process is controlled by the journals themselves and therefore, the timing is not only out of our hands, but still not something we can address. So it would be a mistake to assume anything about timing from this page. Melba simply found all this attention to be ineffectively handled on her personal page. Here, I can help, as well as others she might designate as admins, so we can try to address questions better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Something no one has suggested yet is the DNA study being published in something like AJHG The American Journal of Genetics. Assuming the publication HAS to be Science or HAS to be Nature seems shortsighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 No, I was just hoping it wasn't a veterinarian journal so hadn't mentioned that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 My question is why are we acting like this paper has been accepted for publication when in fact it never has been confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. THAT is a good question. I guess we don't have anything better to do with our time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Matt Moneymaker confirmed that the paper had been rejected by Nature. You have to be cautious of Matt Facts. Huh? Quick re(re?)summary of the publication steps in typical scientific journal = submission, rejection or decision acceptance to review it, review 1, rejection or acceptance or opportunity to revise, submission of revision, review 2, rejection or acceptance, galley proof preparation and review, page charge payment, publication. The vast majority of papers that are in review will never be published by the first journal to which they are submitted, especially if that journal is Science or Nature. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Fixed only in the sense that you're now using two different meanings for the word 'acceptance'. In logic that's referred to as equivocation. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I would call it clarification, since there are many questions about whether the paper has been accepted, and ofcoarse there is acceptance for review and acceptance fo publication. They are two different things but are not equivocal to rejection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 ^Um no. You can't, as I've pointed out earlier in this thread for another dear member, just decree your own definitions for how words are used. I am a published author, reviewer, and associate editor: we don't use the word "accept" other than in the context of "accepted for publication." Your breaking of my comment above is the first time I've ever seen the phrase "acceptance to review." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I didn't invent the words and their meaning, but the opposite of rejection is to accept. I recognize the middle ground of "peer" review" and that a paper in review wouldn't be there if some merit or premise was'nt accepted. A paper without a pub. date carries no implication of rejection either. summary of the publication steps in typical scientific journal = submission, rejection or decision to review it, review 1, rejection or acceptance or opportunity to revise, submission of revision, review 2, rejection or acceptance, galley proof preparation and review, page charge payment, publication. There are three points in the process of your summary where the paper could be rejected, this implies to me that when a paper is not rejected it is accepted to the next stage in the process. It may be that authors don't use the word accept except as a final approval, but I don't think that has been implied. I'm not expecting to hear that the paper has been accepted for publication, it will just hit the press and be published one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I guess it really doesn't matter since either way, it's not out for us to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I read some site last night (can't remember stuff while in the office!) and it had a count down clock with 3 days left to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) I didn't invent the words and their meaning, but the opposite of rejection is to accept, but recognize the middle ground of "peer" review" and that a paper in review wouldn't be there if some merit or premise was'nt accepted. A paper without a pub. date carries no implication of rejection either. summary of the publication steps in typical scientific journal = submission, rejection or decision to review it, review 1, rejection or acceptance or opportunity to revise, submission of revision, review 2, rejection or acceptance, galley proof preparation and review, page charge payment, publication. There are three points in the process of your summary where the paper could be rejected, this implies to me that when a paper is not rejected it is accepted to the next stage in the process. It may be that authors don't use the word accept except as a final approval, but I don't think that has been implied. felt empowered anyway, to alter the post of someone who knows a lot about it, so it would look like a correction, rather than just adding a comment. I'm not expecting to hear that the paper has been accepted for publication, it will just hit the press and be published one day. "fixed." get my point? p. Edited February 27, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 "fixed." get my point? p. Sure, I still think if a paper isn't rejected on first submission, then it is accepted for review whether it is actually said or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts