Talk:Progress in Physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The previous page was mostly copied from the first Google hit for "Progress in Physics" (the Geocities site), and I felt the page should be updated. In terms of what makes their journal special, it is much more their approach to science (antiestablishmentarianism) than their field (theoretical physics). Ckerr 08:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Art, quotation out of context is bad quotation. One can read any of the four translations of the declaration and decide for himself. None of us should analyze and push his own views what this declaration says. As I am one of the trasnlators of the declaration in Bulgarian language, I am word-by-word acquainted with the whole text, and I can assure you that the passage taken is out of context. I might as well select 10 other passages, showing that orthodoxy or not, is not the primary criterion for publication of PP. Nor the suggested "pride" of un-orthodoxy is announced in the PP home page, or any other page. The mentioned declaration does not say "all crackpots, please publish with us", the declaration says semantically "all crackpots must be rejected solely on scientific merit of their work, and not on extra-scientific ground, such as lack of affiliation, not having PhD or different other academic degree, nationality, previous known flawed publications, etc.". The Declaration says - let us be fair scientist, looking for the truth, and do not care of extra-scientific un-ethical issues. Danko Georgiev MD 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. I do believe this Declaration deserves its own article in Wikipedia, as this is a manifest that is being under solidary translation in other languages as well, part of this triggered by my Bulgarian translation. See, the last section on Nuclear Weapons, this is exactly what prof. Tabish Qureshi did, so the mentioned declaration is somehow connected with the fact I worked on prof. Qureshi's biography in the past few days. Danko Georgiev MD 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Declaration is one of the headline links on the homepage of PP, and it is signed "Editor-in-Chief of Progress in Physics", so there is no question this is an official declaration of how PP sees itself. You will not find anything like it from any mainline scientific publication. Since this is part of what makes PP unique among journals, we have to give the reader more information than just a link. It is not enough to say how PP is like all other journals, we also have to say how it is different. I think the quotation eloquently summarizes that. Perhaps you have a suggestion for how to include more context in the quotation, or for a different quotation that even better summarizes the contrast to mainline journals? --Art Carlson 08:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Art, what is different in PP? I really am tired of this partisan war. Do you want to derogate the fact that I have published in PP? If so, well. Do not push however your extreme view that PP is "different journal". This may have good or bad meaning. We are NOT here to give our emotional opinions on which journal is good and which journal is bad. I ahve not characterized all possible journal where I have submitted papers, but believe me there is CORRUPTION in the whole publishing system. I have been plagiarized brutally by person who now has won 2 million US $ grant on my back, after rejecting paper of mine in biophysical journal where he was in the editiorial board, and then republishing my rejected ideas from his own name. Please stop this parody! I am quiting this discussion, as you were ridiculing the whole issue of Wikipedia, with inserting your emotional remarks "here and there" because this is "different" and this is not. Either you put objectively everywhere the same labels, or stop puting labels at all. I don't like it, and do not support your labeling edits. Of course you may do whatever you wish, and put whatever you wish labels. I will edit peacefully on contributing and expanding the good content in Wikiepdia and will not lose my time in argueing with you. You won! I hope someone will stop you soon or later from doing what you are doing. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 09:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. I am positively thinking person I prefer to gether positive and good information, in sense write down all the good stuff about a person, or something. I think it is corrupted practice to look around for gossips in the web, and then add some "picant" but unverifiable information on blackening someone's name. However, I do not understand why you support a person who has promoted in yellow press in a huge propaganda some false scientific ideas, and who collects yellow press articles on his web page. No normal scientist is proud of what yellow press writes about him. All self-respective scientists collect modestly only published works on their web pages [plus several preprints] and then leave the reader decide the value of the published content. If one is not interested in sacience, I don't understand why this personality will ever read material discussing science, at first place. Danko Georgiev MD 09:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I never said that PP is "bad" (at least not in a Wiki article). I said it is unorthodox. You, in contrast, just said that the "whole publishing system" is "CORRUPT". If you think that PP is a rare exception to that statement, then we agree that it is different from other journals. And if your personal attack is aimed at Afshar, I don't know in what sense I have ever "supported" him. I am still undecided on the scientific issue. --Art Carlson 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Art, let us not be involved in denying the obvious facts. There is no personal attack in my claims. However your post that "PP prides with opposition to the orthodox views" is NOT even personal attack, it is a deliberate ridicule of PP. The sarcasm is obvious in your note, regardless of the fact whether you agree or disagree, I have requested you several times to delete it, yet you seem to be very fond of your edit. I am forced to conclude you have stuck to this comment, not because of its objectivity, but exactly because it is a "little victory" of yours. Then please keep it, but don't think I will be polited by your behavior. Danko Georgiev MD 08:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Personal attacks: You wrote, for example: "No normal scientist is proud of what yellow press writes about him." WP:NPA says this: "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. ... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Your statement is directed at Afshar himself, not at his arguments. You call him "not normal". You use the inflamatory phrase "yellow press". Maybe you honestly don't realize it, but these are personal attacks and out-of-place in Wikipedia.
• "prides itself": This is an ordinary English phrase that is not even derogatory, much less "deliberate ridicule" or "sarcasm". It is possible that as a non-native speaker you understand this phrase differently. There may be a better way to express this thought, but I can't think of it. Maybe "encourages", "strives for", or simply "questions orthodox views"? If you don't like this formulation, can you try to be more constructive by suggesting an alternative?
• Finally, please keep in mind that you should assume good faith. --Art Carlson 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

I suspected that editing this page might open a can of worms! There are a few points I would like to make, in support of why I reverted Danko's changes.

First, Danko should probably not be editing the page, for the same reason that congressional staffers are not allowed to edit their employer's page, individuals are not allowed to edit their own pages, etc.--a conflict of interest. Although it is true I am part of the commercialized scientific establishment, and therefore (according to PP) have inherent bias, I hadn't heard about PP until several days ago, and I certainly have no particularly strong feelings for or against it.

Second, Danko made the comment that people should read the declaration and interpret it for themselves. Ideally, yes; but the whole point of an encylcopedia is to summarize primary sources. Personally, I don't think the quote is taken out of context; the context of the declaration is much the same as the quote.

Third, I believe it can be reasonably objectively stated that Art's version was more NPOV than Danko's. There was not a single word in anything that I or Art wrote that could only be interpreted negatively ("unorthodox" is not a synonym for "bad"!). Ckerr 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ckerr, IF you are biased as part of the commercialized science, so I should be classified as commercialized scientist too, as I am in academic position at Kanazawa University [check my profile]. However, I think that even IF I am part of the commercialized and corrupted system, I CAN VOICE MY OPINION that all this is WRONG, and soon or later must stop. Concerning the excerpt, yes, it is out of context, the Declaration contains total of 12 articles, so there is word against "taking awards and corruptions when publishing, or peer-reviewing papers" [for peer-reviewers], there is article that research advisors, should have consultatory role, and NOT impose their own ideas on the PhD students that they patronize, also there is word AGAINST inserting co-authors never contributed - yes, this is 80% practice of all published work, most of the co-authors have never heard of what is going on in the paper at first place, and last but not least, there is word against nuclear weapons, and that scientist IF forced to work for such agenda, THEN they are morally responsible to RUIN the development of such weapons, and there is article that "for voicing of your free opinion as human" the institutions should NOT be able to fire you from the academic institution. This is so because you have this freedom of speech as basic human right, they should fire you ONLY IF you are incompetent researcher, etc. i.e. ONLY on scientific grounds. I am NOT biased, but you want to quote about the Declaration, please open new Wiki article, and then please present unbiased view of the basic principles stated in the declaration. Now, Art uses his subtle manipulations, to derogate the PP journal, as on another page he included his/yours? original thought that conveys BAD meaning i.e. "This journal PRIDES itself as opposing the orthodox views" as IF implying that only crackpots publish in PP. Let us be honest, and be objective. I don't mind being reverted, but then, I wish to expand the whole article and include citations on other MUCH MORE important points, than the mentioned "out of context" passage. The "orthodox" is synonymous to ALL this corruption, supression, and the CONTEXT of this "orthodoxy" should be understood from the Declaration only! "Orthodox" is metaphor used by prof. Rabounski, to ridicule the current corruption in academic circles! If we are honest scientist we should NOT "put our heads in the sand". Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. In the whole Declaration "orthodox" is metaphor, so the quotation literally is out of context. So I would like to insert footnote, that in the original text "orthodox" stands for academic corruption, unethical behjavior by peer-reviewer, pseudo-coauthorship, etc. etc. I believe this clarifies sufficiently my thesis. It should be understood literally, "orthodox" has NOT its common-sense meaning [whatever that may be]. Danko Georgiev MD 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)