Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design Peer review

That notorious ID paper was the one most downloaded from the Journal…

Spread the love

Readers, you remember surely… that ID-friendly paper at the Journal of Theoretical Biology by Thorvaldsen and Hossjer? It got through the cracks. Even got through the Twitter summit.

And the anguished screams from the editors that they didn’t know that the paper leaned toward design in nature… Never mind the stern rebuttal letter.

Hey, chill. Media hacks call that the Banned in Boston effect. Here is how you can know that the media hacks are right:

What is the top download paper in that stable? Yes!

Noise overheard from the Uncommon Descent News Coffee Room, Free Bagels Hour: “Eventually, people, we are going to have to start rewarding the Darwinians for banning and persecuting advocates of design in nature.

Look, guys, it’s only fair. Mediocrities steam themselves into near oblivion to destroy the idea and their efforts only fan the flames. Sadly, all we wanted was a serious discussion. We never asked them to be Roman candles.”

47 Replies to “That notorious ID paper was the one most downloaded from the Journal…

  1. 1
    Mac McTavish says:

    To put it in context, authors who pay to have their papers published as open access have a much higher download rate.

  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    Yeah and it’s also competing with other papers what are the authors pay as open access

  3. 3
    Mac McTavish says:

    Aaron, as far as I know, authors don’t get paid extra for publishing open access papers. I think they have to pay a hefty fee. But I could be wrong. Maybe those here who have published papers could inform us. ET? KF? WJM?

  4. 4
    martin_r says:

    Darwinian clowns …

  5. 5
  6. 6
    ET says:

    It is very telling that there aren’t any peer-reviewed papers that support blind watchmaker evolution. Nothing to download.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Yes, Mac and cheese is wrong, again: Understanding Submission and Publication Fees

    In other words, as an author, you may have to pay for submission to and/or publication in a subscription-based journal and may not have to do so for an open access one. The latter concept is made possible by alternative sources of revenue that cover the costs of the editorial, peer review, and publication processes, such as paywalled premium content, advertising, or subsidy by a journal’s affiliated foundation or society.

    Note also that for both traditional and open access publications that do entail so-called “author” charges, you may not have to pay these fees in full because of discounts related to institutional membership programs, your own society membership, or waivers of service (such as if in-house copyediting is not needed). Moreover, you may not have to pay full or even discounted fees due to waivers based on either financial hardship or your country of origin’s economic status or due to coverage by your institution, department, or funder/grant; in fact, for open access publication, only 5% to 12% of fees are ever paid using personal funds.

  8. 8
    polistra says:

    Authors who want to publish outside of the usual channels always have to pay. This has always been true. Vanity press and samizdat are costly. If you want to publish for free, or get paid, you MUST accept that you are simply a subcontractor, and you MUST give control to the publisher. You have to let the publisher decide whether to publish and how much to censor.

    The fake “freeness” of the web has spoiled us. We assume that we are entitled to be paid for using the enemy’s presses and broadcasting studios. This entitlement never existed, and still doesn’t exist.

  9. 9
    Bob O'H says:

    ET – well done on that quote-mine. Here’s how that paragraph starts:

    Before addressing this slew of questions, it is important to note a common oversimplification: that traditional journals are solely based on a reader-pays model, in which institutional libraries typically pay for access to content, and that open access journals, supporting “unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse,” are always based on an author-pays model (see our article on open access myths for more information).

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Holy cow, Bob O’H- can you read for comprehension? Apparently not:

    it is important to note a common oversimplification

    I didn’t quote-mine, Bob. You just cannot read for comprehension.

  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    Yes, ET, I can read for comprehension. Unlike you. “it is important to note a common oversimplification…” means that it is a simplification, not that it is totally wrong. As a general rule, Mac McTavish is right, but there are exceptions. Which is what Michaela Panter is pointing out in that paragraph.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Pound sand, Bob. It means that it is an oversimplification. And it means that Mac was wrong. There isn’t anywhere in the article that says anything about paying a hefty fee for open access.

    Again, your reading comprehension issues have surfaced.

  13. 13
    Mac McTavish says:

    Mac

    Aaron, as far as I know, authors don’t get paid extra for publishing open access papers. I think they have to pay a hefty fee. But I could be wrong.

    ET

    Yes, Mac and cheese is wrong, again:

    There isn’t anywhere in the article that says anything about paying a hefty fee for open access.

    It looks like reading comprehension is one of ET’s many problems.

    Articles are freely available to both subscribers and the wider public with permitted reuse.

    An open access publication fee is payable by authors or their research funder.

    To provide gold open access, this journal has a publication fee which needs to be met by the authors or their research funders for each article published open access. The gold open access publication fee for this journal is USD 2600, excluding taxes.

  14. 14
    johnnyb says:

    In my calculus paper, after passing peer review, the journal would publish it for free, but I had to pay $900 to make it open-access.

    https://www.academia.edu/37619039/Extending_the_Algebraic_Manipulability_of_Differentials

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Earth to Mac and cheese- Grow up and learn how to read. GOLD open access is different than open access. Looks like all of the problems are yours, punk.

    There isn’t anywhere in the article that says anything about paying a hefty fee for OPEN ACCESS.

    AND, as the article says, the research funder would be paying if the researcher did it correctly- all of the fees should have been included in the grant. You are supposed to figure out your expenses before submitting.

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    What is the basic open access fee? Have any of you checked? And what is ‘hefty’?

    You guys are just arguing to argue.

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    ET – some of us have knowledge about this that goes beyond one article. One can argue what exactly is “hefty”, but for most journals it’s of the order of 2-3 thousand dollars. If you’re lucky, your funding agency or country will have negotiated a deal, but that isn’t guaranteed.

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Bob, your “knowledge” seems to be very, very limited. And your ability to apply that knowledge also appears to be very, very limited. Again, “open access” vs “gold open access”. The gold seems to be hefty but that should have been figured in and taken care of prior to the research. It is a choice, after all.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    JVL- The fees depend on the journal and level of access. Sometimes open-access is free.

  20. 20
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET

    Again, “open access” vs “gold open access”. The gold seems to be hefty but that should have been figured in and taken care of prior to the research. It is a choice, after all.

    For this journal there are two types of open access. The gold, in which the author (or employer) pays a hefty fee. The green, in which subscriptions pay for open access, after 24 months. Is this paper two years old?

  21. 21
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET

    Bob, your “knowledge” seems to be very, very limited.

    Bob has published numerous peer reviewed papers. How many have you published?

  22. 22
    ET says:

    Yes, Mac and cheese. That is part of Bob’s very limited knowledge.

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Mac and cheese:

    For this journal there are two types of open access.

    The context was in general and not for any specific journal. But I understand why you would want to move the goalpost.

  24. 24
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET

    Yes, Mac and cheese. That is part of Bob’s very limited knowledge.

    Hmm. On one hand we have someone who has published numerous peer reviewed papers, and continues to do so. On the other hand we have someone who’s expertise is limited to insulting people on a fringe web site. So, who should I listen to about the intricacies about how peer reviewed papers are published?

  25. 25
    ET says:

    Mac and cheese:

    On one hand we have someone who has published numerous peer reviewed papers, and continues to do so.

    In a limited context.

    On the other hand we have someone who’s expertise is limited to insulting people on a fringe web site.

    Look, punk, YOU brought me into this discussion with your snide, cowardly BS. YOU are the insipid troll who can only try to insult people. And then when your nonsense is exposed to try to change the subject and act all innocent. You are a loser.

    And I don’t care who you listen to. You are obviously too stupid to assess the evidence and reach and rational inference.

  26. 26
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET

    The context was in general and not for any specific journal.

    You should put those goalposts on wheels. It will make them easier to shift.

    The context was a specific Elsevier open access paper (see OP for reference). As a friend of mine is fond of saying, context is important. You would be well advised to keep that in mind.

  27. 27
    Mac McTavish says:

    Encephelatically Turgid

    Look, punk, YOU brought me into this discussion with your snide, cowardly BS.

    I’m curious. How did I do this? I will certainly try to avoid it in the future. Nobody enjoys your childish schoolyard bully tactics. Most of us grew out of that immature phase decades ago.

  28. 28
    ET says:

    Mac and cheese:

    The context was a specific Elsevier open access paper (see OP for reference).

    WRONG! Your comment @ 3 was a general reference and not specific to the OP. Read it for yourself, loser:

    Aaron, as far as I know, authors don’t get paid extra for publishing open access papers. I think they have to pay a hefty fee. But I could be wrong. Maybe those here who have published papers could inform us. ET? KF? WJM?

    It had NOTHING to do with the paper in the OP. As I said- you are a punk and a loser.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    Look, punk, YOU brought me into this discussion with your snide, cowardly BS.

    Mac and cheese

    I’m curious. How did I do this?

    By being your usual cowardly, punk self. It’s all in comment #3, loser.

    And only a cowardly loser and poseur would think I am being the bully. I am exposing you for being a liar, quote-mining loser and insipid troll. Don’t blame me.

  30. 30
    Mac McTavish says:

    Erroneously Talented

    Look, punk, YOU brought me into this discussion with your snide, cowardly BS….. It’s all in comment #3, loser.

    I assume that you are referring to this

    Maybe those here who have published papers could inform us. ET? KF? WJM?

    I was simply asking a question of three frequent commenters. Given the nature of their comments I simply assumed that they had experience in publishing papers. Was I mistaken? That you took it as an insult speaks volumes.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    No, mealy Mouth, you were just being your usual punk self. I didn’t take it as an insult. You are too much of a loser to insult anyone. It is as I already said- a snide, cowardly comment from a cowardly, insipid troll.

  32. 32
    daveS says:

    ET,

    Please lower the rhetorical voltage.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    daves, Stop being a jerk. Look at the trope I am responding to.

  34. 34
    ET says:

    Just because I understand science better than mealy mouth mac, Bob O’H and all evolutionists, doesn’t mean I even care about publishing any work in peer-review. As a matter of fact I say all work could be published online for free and let the world review it.

  35. 35
    Mac McTavish says:

    Extremely Tenuous

    Just because I understand science better than mealy mouth mac, Bob O’H and all evolutionists, doesn’t mean I even care about publishing any work in peer-review.

    Translation: I am so afraid of criticism, laughter and rejection that I don’t submit my work to peer-reviewed journals.

  36. 36
    ET says:

    Posted like the mental midget that you are, mealy mouth. You are a quote-mining coward. Not only that you can’t even follow what YOU say! How pathetic is that?

    Just another a snide, cowardly comment from a cowardly, insipid troll.

  37. 37
    ET says:

    Why isn’t there any peer-reviewed papers that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes? By the mental midget’s “logic” evo scientists are ” so afraid of criticism, laughter and rejection”.

  38. 38
    ET says:

    Publishing and peer-review. I have published at least 1,000 fault analysis papers. All reviewed by my peers, ie engineers at the companies I worked for. Those papers led to improvements on the product and customer relations.

  39. 39
    Bob O'H says:

    ET – do you have links to these publications? The closest thing of relevance I can find is a wallpaper dispenser.

  40. 40
    daveS says:

    Perhaps in The Distinguished Annals of Toaster Repair? 🤔

  41. 41
    ET says:

    Whatever, Bob. I am comforted by the fact that I have worked on electronic equipment that you couldn’t even understand. An I am very comforted by the fact that I could easily eviscerate you in a debate on science- ID vs mainstream evolution.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    daves- check out the toaster I have installed, repaired and engineered upgrades for in many countries and States. And this toaster, too. And let’s not forget this toaster that brought me to Iraq. Actually all 3 brought me to Iraq.

  43. 43
    daveS says:

    I have to admit, those are some badass toasters.

  44. 44
    ET says:

    This toaster and this toaster got me introduced to the countries and rain forests of northern South America.

    This toaster had me in Norway working with Ericsson on the Patriot missile system’s communication network.

  45. 45
    daveS says:

    What kind of engineering were you doing?

  46. 46
    Bob O'H says:

    OMG, he’s a Cylon agent!

  47. 47
    ET says:

    Choo-Choo Charlie, engineering, Dave. 😎 Field engineering and technical support. Secure communications- military and civilian. We have to get our equipment to work with whatever the customer has. In Europe, for example, the phone line impedance is different. So I had to modify our units by changing components the design guys said not to touch. But once I returned and explained to the group, it was just praise for having the guts to go against them and make the correct call in the field.

    With Ericsson, although our equipment is transparent to the signal being transmitted and received, there was still a delay inherent with the added electronics. The same with Egypt and secure satellite comms. And Saudi for ship to shore.

    In Colombia that meant climbing microwave towers hoping FARC doesn’t take notice.

    Duck tape, chewing gum, DVM, solder, iron and a multi-tool. Cable ties would be nice. 🙂

Leave a Reply