Some of those peer reviews must take a lot of time. I wonder if people who are asked to do them are paid anything, if not, I would wonder why they would even bother.

It's part of being a professional.

Some of those peer reviews must take a lot of time. I wonder if people who are asked to do them are paid anything, if not, I would wonder why they would even bother.

Recruiting referees

At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor.[17] When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications.[18]

Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. Indeed, for a number of journals this is a requirement of submission. Authors are sometimes also invited to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgments" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers).[citation needed]

Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because academic writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialties, and can not be experts in all of them. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific journals, to each other (see Anonymous peer review). Policies on such matters differ among academic disciplines.

Recruiting referees is a political art, because referees, and often editors, are usually not paid, and reviewing takes time away from the referee's main activities, such as his or her own research. To the would-be recruiter's advantage, most potential referees are authors themselves, or at least readers, who know that the publication system requires that experts donate their time. Referees also have the opportunity to prevent work that does not meet the standards of the field from being published, which is a position of some responsibility. Editors are at a special advantage in recruiting a scholar when they have overseen the publication of his or her work, or if the scholar is one who hopes to submit manuscripts to that editor's publication in the future. Granting agencies, similarly, tend to seek referees among their present or former grantees. Serving as a referee can even be a condition of a grant, or professional association membership.

Another difficulty that peer review organizers face is that, with respect to some manuscripts or proposals, there may be few scholars who truly qualify as experts. Such a circumstance often frustrates the goals of reviewer anonymity and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. It also increases the chances that an organizer will not be able to recruit true experts – people who have themselves done work similar to that under review, and who can read between the lines. Low-prestige or local journals and granting agencies that award little money are especially handicapped with regard to recruiting experts.

Finally, anonymity adds to the difficulty in finding reviewers in another way. In scientific circles, credentials and reputation are important, and while being a referee for a prestigious journal is considered an honor, the anonymity restrictions make it impossible to publicly state that one was a referee for a particular article. However, credentials and reputation are principally established by publications, not by refereeing; and in some fields refereeing may not be anonymous.

So how many peer reviews have you been asked to do and what were they?

I don't think I said his comment didn't make sense. (He says he is a professional engineer.) He made the remark that Arkadiusz Jadczyk "did not understand the math" etc...." ... so I am assuming he feels he understands the math enough to make that statement.

I am inquiring about his own experience at peer reviewing, and if he has done much of it.

Your response to his statement was either, a jab, or off topic. If a jab then it was pathetic, if off topic then it meant you did not understand what he meant.

The set of all professionals is much larger than the set of professionals who publish. Either you knew this, or you didn't. If you did then your comment comes off as an unnecessary jab.

A jab? Maybe. But he is always making the same statements that so and so "does not understand the math" as if he is qualified to make such statements.

I believe Arkadiusz Jadczyk is sufficiently qualified and he himself states that math is his forte. Now unless Metalwing is more qualified than Arkadiusz Jadczyk, I don't think he should make statements that Jadczyk doesn't understand the math, unless Metalwing himself does understand the math, which I doubt he does.

A jab? Maybe. But he is always making the same statements that so and so "does not understand the math" as if he is qualified to make such statements.

I believe Arkadiusz Jadczyk is sufficiently qualified and he himself states that math is his forte. Now unless Metalwing is more qualified than Arkadiusz Jadczyk, I don't think he should make statements that Jadczyk doesn't understand the math, unless Metalwing himself does understand the math, which I doubt he does.

it's kind of pointless for you to decide who knows what math when:

you don't understand the math
you do not not know either of them personally
you do not comprehend the article to begin with...

just because you find something on the internet that agrees with what you are saying, does not mean either of you are right.

Moe's right.

However ...

I think Moe will have a little different perspective on this topic after this weekend.

is it byob?

Yeah, but there will be lots so hold back.

i think i have figured it all out now... this makes sense, so it must be true...

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2137/945/Timeshift:_Did_Reality_Reset_After_911.html

this article explains everything wrong with the world today!

Sounds like an episode of Fringe!

My qualifications exceed Arkadiusz Jadczyk in this area. You attack anyone who actually knows anything in these threads and you constantly provide credence to those who have no actual background in your posts. You constantly argue topics of which you know absolutely nothing.

You didn't even pay attention to my post. The problems he had were with the applied physics ... which is supposed to be his forte... which led to his misunderstanding of the math.

If you understood the subject, you would realize the applied physics are concepts engineers deal with every day but academicians do not. He was therefore a poor choice for this task.

Just for the record, there is no part of any of the physics, math, or related analysis of the Twin Towers falling that I "do not understand". I also am aware of many aspects of the failure that did not go into the public record yet.

I have taken the time to explain a lot of this on Mingle and I hope some folks got some benefit from it. It is obvious you did not.

So these are your claims, but I don't know you, other than your screen name "metalwing" and I have never seen your credentials.

Therefore, you have none as far as I can see. I saw that you criticized this expert in the same way you do everyone who does not agree with you.

So I simply asked you how many peer reviews have you done, if any.

I see no reason to take your word for anything just because you claim to be more qualified than everyone. I think it is ego talking.

If everyone else wants to believe you, and take your word for it, that's up to them. All I ever see from you is your proclaiming that nobody understands the science or math or whatever.

Everyone knows who I am, but I don't know who you are. You are just a screen name.

Valid point, if claims are made it is only natural for one to ask for justification for that claim.

I dont think snark helps tho, just my own .02

how does everyone know who you are, but not metalwing? wouldn't that be about equal?