From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 00:29:00 2014 From: "Robert Molt r.molt.chemical.physics[-]gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50022-140504192545-29914-Bx7LHZKrYplRh97PuYnusA%%server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Robert Molt Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040003050206090608000904" Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 19:25:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Robert Molt [r.molt.chemical.physics .. gmail.com] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040003050206090608000904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I find it absurd how many people are claiming how "obvious" it is to identify reviewers/authors of papers. Empirically, this is not true. The people claiming how obvious this is apparently have forgotten what it is like to be a newer scientist in the field, and not have decades of experience to have met "everyone" and know the writing styles of "everyone" while they are just a graduate student writing papers. Perhaps I am just the village idiot, but I've not been able to identify the reviewers of my 7 papers. Regardless, the "obviousness" of identities does not have any logical bearing on the question proposed: why show the names of paper's authors? If the anonymity of the reviewers is precious (reasonable), why is the anonymity of the submitters any less precious? Of course I take any paper written by Dr. Bartlett or Dr. Cramer more seriously...they are great scientists. Of course I will be biased in their favor, whereas the exact same publication from some loser named Robert Molt would require a greater hurdle. Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D. r.molt.chemical.physics{}gmail.com Nigel Richards Research Group Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis LD 326 402 N. Blackford St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 On 5/4/14 1:14 PM, Jack Miller jmiller * brocku.ca wrote: > I am a retired chemist and VP Research, still tying up loose end of > 40+ years of lab results. My wife is retired dramatic arts Prof, Some > of her papers too over a year to get the reviews back, which is also > the case is disciplines such as Math and Computer Science. > > My wife used to get manuscripts to review with the author's name > suppressed - it being a relatively small field, and in almost all > cases she could identify the author, and for reviews of her own > papers, books and grant applications she was almost always sure who > the anonymous referees were. > > In chemistry I could very often identify the referees for my nearly > 200 papers. If the authors were anonymous they would still be > identifiable by the references or the instrumentation used or as one > of my mentors used say he could identify the referee who was still > making the same grammar mistakes made in their thesis. > > What we have works - don't reinvent the wheel. > > > > Prof. Jack Miller > Special Advisor on Buildings & Space, > Emeritus Professor of Chemistry > Brock University. > > Jmiller^-^brocku.ca > Sent from my iPad > > On May 4, 2014, at 4:33 AM, "Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com > " > wrote: > >> I vote for the "triple-blind" review: Nobody knows the reviewers, the >> authors, or the editors! >> >> On 5/3/2014 3:11 PM, Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat wrote: >>> I just wanted to add that highly high-profile journals like Angewandte, >>> Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in research, >>> but I would doubt seriously that this would make them incompetent. >>> >>> Like Michel said, two months is nothing, it is not unusual to have a >>> period of between 2 months and one year between first submission >>> and final acceptance. It reminds me of an Editorial I’ve recently read, >>> about how to write a paper and how to deal with the reviewing process. >>> See: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cm501152b >>> >>> Good luck with the paper! >>> >>> Marcel >>> >>> On 2014-05-03, at 09:13, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could >>>> result >>>> in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my >>>> case two >>>> months. Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be >>>> active in research at all, something which is completely unheard of >>>> for a high- >>>> profile journal. >>>> >>>> ---------- >>>> Demetra Dimetrodon >>> >>> >>> =================================== >>> Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart >>> >>> ICREA Research Professor at >>> Institut de Química Computacional i Catŕlisi >>> Universitat de Girona >>> >>> Facultat de Cičncies >>> Campus Montilivi >>> 17071 Girona >>> Catalunya (Spain) >>> >>> tel >>> +34-972-418861 >>> fax >>> +34-972-418356 >>> e-mail >>> marcel.swart---icrea.cat >>> marcel.swart---udg.edu >>> web >>> http://www.marcelswart.eu >>> vCard >>> addressbook://www.marcelswart.eu/MSwart.vcf >>> =================================== >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> ..........Sebastian Kozuch........... >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> ......University of North Texas...... >> ..........Denton, Texas, USA......... >> ........seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com ....... >> http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/kozuch.htm >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --------------040003050206090608000904 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I find it absurd how many people are claiming how "obvious" it is to identify reviewers/authors of papers.  Empirically, this is not true.  The people claiming how obvious this is apparently have forgotten what it is like to be a newer scientist in the field, and not have decades of experience to have met "everyone" and know the writing styles of "everyone" while they are just a graduate student writing papers.

Perhaps I am just the village idiot, but I've not been able to identify the reviewers of my 7 papers.

Regardless, the "obviousness" of identities does not have any logical bearing on the question proposed: why show the names of paper's authors?  If the anonymity of the reviewers is precious (reasonable), why is the anonymity of the submitters any less precious?

Of course I take any paper written by Dr. Bartlett or Dr. Cramer more seriously...they are great scientists.  Of course I will be biased in their favor, whereas the exact same publication from some loser named Robert Molt would require a greater hurdle.
Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.
r.molt.chemical.physics{}gmail.com
Nigel Richards Research Group
Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
LD 326
402 N. Blackford St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
On 5/4/14 1:14 PM, Jack Miller jmiller * brocku.ca wrote:
I am a retired chemist and VP Research, still tying up loose end of 40+ years of lab results. My wife is  retired dramatic arts Prof, Some of her papers too over a year to get the reviews back, which is also the case is disciplines such as Math and Computer Science. 

My wife used to get manuscripts to review with the author's name suppressed - it being a relatively small field, and in almost all cases she could identify the author, and for reviews of her own papers, books and grant applications she was almost always sure who the anonymous referees were. 

In chemistry I could very often  identify the referees for my nearly 200 papers. If the authors were anonymous they would still be identifiable by the references or the instrumentation used or as one of my mentors used say he could identify the referee who was still making the same grammar mistakes made in their thesis.

What we have works - don't reinvent the wheel.



Prof. Jack Miller
Special Advisor on Buildings & Space,
Emeritus Professor of Chemistry
Brock University.

Sent from my iPad

On May 4, 2014, at 4:33 AM, "Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com" <owner-chemistry^-^ccl.net> wrote:

I vote for the "triple-blind" review: Nobody knows the reviewers, the authors, or the editors!

On 5/3/2014 3:11 PM, Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat wrote:
I just wanted to add that highly high-profile journals like Angewandte,
Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in research,
but I would doubt seriously that this would make them incompetent.

Like Michel said, two months is nothing, it is not unusual to have a
period of between 2 months and one year between first submission
and final acceptance. It reminds me of an Editorial I’ve recently read,
about how to write a paper and how to deal with the reviewing process.

Good luck with the paper!

Marcel

On 2014-05-03, at 09:13, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com <owner-chemistry---ccl.net> wrote:

Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result 
in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my case two 
months. Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be 
active in research at all, something which is completely unheard of for a high-
profile journal.

----------
Demetra Dimetrodon


===================================
Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart

ICREA Research Professor at
Institut de Química Computacional i Catŕlisi
Universitat de Girona

Facultat de Cičncies
Campus Montilivi
17071 Girona
Catalunya (Spain)

tel
+34-972-418861
fax
+34-972-418356
e-mail
marcel.swart---icrea.cat
marcel.swart---udg.edu
web
http://www.marcelswart.eu
vCard
addressbook://www.marcelswart.eu/MSwart.vcf
=================================== 







-- 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..........Sebastian Kozuch...........
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
......University of North Texas......
..........Denton, Texas, USA.........
........ seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com .......
http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/kozuch.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--------------040003050206090608000904-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 02:21:00 2014 From: "Mehboob Alam mehboob.cu]*[gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50023-140505015847-26192-+7jhMvvcOLgVhlXMWI01kQ.:.server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Mehboob Alam Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c361dcbe366404f8a0d23b Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:28:40 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Mehboob Alam [mehboob.cu~!~gmail.com] --001a11c361dcbe366404f8a0d23b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello everyone, I'm following the posts related to this issue, right from the beginning. I read all the posts. I just want to say that my Boss also boosted me to do a work and write a paper by myself (without my Boss's name). Like Tarzan P. my paper was also rejected by two of the journals (not at the editorial stage but it was sent for review and reviewers rejected it). Then I submitted it to a third journal (after answering the previous reviewer's comments) of comparatively less impact factor and booommmm...it was accepted after a sort of major revision. So, the conclusion is that it may happen that without a big name the paper may be rejected (without proper justification) but there are also good reviewers who don't search any big name before evaluating a manuscript. I think rejection of a manuscript has its own benefits (including improvement). Although nothing bad has happened with me but I support the double-blind process. With best regards, Md. Mehboob Alam Senior Research Fellow - CSIR-INDIA Department of Chemistry, University of Calcutta Kolkata - 700 009, India On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Robert Molt r.molt.chemical.physics{=} gmail.com wrote: > Well said, "Tarzan P." I understand arguments as to why keeping > reviewers anonymous is fine, but I see no justification for why the > reviewers should see the author's name. Has an argument yet been given? > > Prestige matters. Meritocracy would seemingly be served by having no > names on either side or names on both. > > Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.r.molt.chemical.physics%x%gmail.com > Nigel Richards Research Group > Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology > Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis > LD 326 > 402 N. Blackford St. > Indianapolis, IN 46202 > > On 5/4/14 8:53 AM, tarzan p tarzan11_11#yahoo.com wrote: > > Dear All... > After having initiated the dialogue .. and reading the replies by lots of > people and couple who are themselves editors and reviewers and some from > whom I learn a lot reading their papers .. > Want to share a personal experience ..: > My benevolent boss asked me to go ahead and submit a single author paper > to boost my job prospectus... I submitted .. zoop.. rejected by editor > himself with out going for a review ... Journal B.. zoop again rejected by > editor himself ... Not withstanding this .. I added my boss name .. journal > C ( I pushed it to a journal .. which I never thought it will get through > ..) .. done... went for a review and got accepted after minor revisions as > suggested by two reviewers ... > This many people will write off .. saying that this happed with me also .. > two journals reject and a third might accept ..so what big deal .. > I want to quote Mikael Johansson reply > "But for younger researchers, it could be beneficial, both in removing > some of the possible bias against their work, as well as in perhaps making > them (us) feel more confident about the fairness of the system." > > It did make me feel .. "Is the reviewing process being fair or not ...??" > A few things: > 1. Only a handful of reviewers sign their names and I think it will take a > long time for that to happen unless it becomes mandatory ... > As an author .. I am interested in constructive criticism .. and am not > interested to know who reviewed it .. and I am least concerned if someone > signs it or not .... I would like to know if some one thinks otherwise .. > why does he want to know who reviewed his paper .. ?? > 2. Many said "double blind is a joke" as any competent reviewer gets to > know whose paper is it .. .... OK let him guess ..but why tell him aprior > ..? > 3. It makes NO good/bad to the reviewer to know the author ... but it > MIGHT effect the author, if the reviewer gets to know his name .. some of > you might think I am not right .. but still ...Why not give the benefit of > doubt to the diligent author ... > After all this .. > To have an close to unbiased process... > what is the loss/problem for the editors to adopt a policy of > nondisclosure of the author's name to the reviewer if it is going to bring > more fairness to the system .... > > cheers !!! > > > On Sunday, 4 May 2014, 4:30, Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com ccl.net> wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com] > " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." > > Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the > defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. > > I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews. I > applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so. > > Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and > integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions. To do > otherwise smacks of pusillanimity. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net [ > mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com > {:}ccl.net] On Behalf Of Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral::gmail.com > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM > To: Kress, Jim > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] As a past > editor-in-chief of two journals, please let me add a reason why anonymous > review is useful. > Often, authors are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes the editor is > hassled by unhappy authors (fortunately, not often). > It is part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I did that). > But imagine what could happen when a non anonymous reviewer is hassled by > the author? > You know, editors receive contributions from very diverse authors, not all > fair, and even from sects (yes indeed). > Remember that reviewers are volounteers and benevolent. > If they should face to such authors, imagine the consequences, not only > for the reviewers themselves, but for all the scientific > community: would reviewers still accept to help? > I agree that anonymous review can be criticized, but until now it has more > advantages than drawbacks. > About the double blind review, most time it is not useful, and this is > discussed on the websites cited in a previous post. > Nevertheless, possibly it could make sense for some maths journals, > eventually as an author choice. > May be that should be experienced. > > All my best, > > Michel Petitjean > MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7, > 35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. > Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 > E-mail: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred), > michel.petitjean * univ-paris-diderot.fr > http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html > > 2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com ccl.net>: > > > > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com] Why should the > > names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only reasonable, given > > the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays > > "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who > > reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on > > the topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political > > views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny > > publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward you > and/or your politics. > > > > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is > > not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. > > > > Jim Kress > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net > > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net] > On Behalf Of > > tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM > > To: Kress, Jim > > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > > > > Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] Dear All........ > > It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to > > journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are > confidential. Justified. > > But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and > > his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! > > Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? > > Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of > > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? > > > > I hope to get some views..... > > with best wishes and happy computing > > ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/ > > chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp:// > www.ccl.net/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt > > > the strange characters on the top line to the !=! sign. You can also > > E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY!=!ccl.net or use:> > E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST!=!ccl.net or use> > > > > > --001a11c361dcbe366404f8a0d23b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello everyone,

I'm following the p= osts related to this issue, right from the beginning. I read all the posts.= I just want to say that my Boss also boosted me to do a work and write a p= aper by myself (without my Boss's name). Like Tarzan P. my paper was al= so rejected by two of the journals (not at the editorial stage but it was s= ent for review and reviewers rejected it). Then I submitted it to a third j= ournal (after answering the previous reviewer's comments) of comparativ= ely less impact factor and booommmm...it was accepted after a sort of major= revision. So, the conclusion is that it may happen that without a big name= the paper may be rejected (without proper justification) but =A0there are = also good reviewers who don't search any big name before evaluating a m= anuscript. I think rejection of a manuscript has its own benefits (includin= g improvement). Although nothing bad has happened with me but I support the= double-blind process.

With best regards,
Md. Mehboob Alam
Senior Research Fellow - CSIR-INDIA<= /div>
Department of Chemistry,
University of Calcutta
Kolkata - 700 009, India


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Robert M= olt r.molt.chemical.physics{=3D}gmail.com = <owner-chemistry**ccl.net> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Well said, "Tarzan P."=A0 I understand arguments as to why keeping reviewers anonymous is fine, but I see no justification for why the reviewers should see the author's name.=A0 Has an argument yet been given?

Prestige matters.=A0 Meritocracy would seemingly be served by having no names on either side or names on both.
Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.
r.molt.chemical.physics%x%gmail.com
Nigel Richards Research Group
Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
LD 326
402 N. Blackford St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
On 5/4/14 8:53 AM, tarzan p tarzan11_11#yahoo.com wrote:
Dear All...
After having initiated the dialogue .. and reading the replies by lots of people and couple who are themselves editors and reviewers and some from whom I learn a lot reading their papers ..
Want to share a personal experience ..:
My benevolent boss asked me to go ahead and submit a single author paper to boost my job prospectus...=A0 I submitted .. zoop.. rejected by editor himself=A0 with out going for a review ... Journal B.. zoop again rejected by editor himself ... Not withstanding this .. I added my boss name .. journal C ( I pushed it to a journal .. which I never thought it will get through ..) .. done... went for a review and got accepted after minor revisions as suggested by two reviewers ...
This many people will write off .. saying that this happed with me also .. two journals reject and a third might accept ..so what big deal ..
I want to quote Mikael Johansson reply
"But for younger researchers, it could be beneficial, bo= th in removing some of the possible bias against their work, as well as in perhaps making them (us) feel more confident about the=A0 fairness of the system."

It did make me feel .. "Is the reviewing process being fair or not ...??"
A few things:
1. Only a handful of reviewers sign their names and I think it will take a long time for that to happen unless it becomes mandatory ...
As an author .. I am interested in constructive criticism .. and am not interested to know who reviewed it .. and I am least concerned if someone signs it or not=A0 .... I would like to know if some one thinks otherwise .. why does he want to know who reviewed his paper .. ??
2. Many said "double blind is a joke" as any compete= nt reviewer gets to know whose paper is it .. .... OK let him guess ..but why tell him aprior ..?
3. It makes NO good/bad to the reviewer to know the author ... but it MIGHT effect the author, if the reviewer gets to know his name=A0 .. some of you might think I am not right .. but still ...Why not give the benefit of doubt to the diligent author ...
After all this ..
To have an close to unbiased process...
what is the loss/problem for the editors to adopt a policy of nondisclosure of the author's name to the reviewer if it is going to bring more fairness to the system ....

cheers !!!


On Sunday, 4 May 2014, 4:30, Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com <owner-chemistry!=3D!ccl.net> wrote:

Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com]
" Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent."

Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have comme= nted herein.=A0

I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews.=A0 I applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so.

Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions.=A0 To do otherwise smacks of pusillanimity.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.c= om{:}ccl.net] On Behalf Of Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral::gmail.com
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM
To: Kress, Jim
Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!


Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] As a past editor-in-chief of two journals, please let me add a reason why anonymous review is useful.
Often, authors are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes the editor is hassled by unhappy authors (fortunately, not often).
It is part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I did that).
But imagine what could happen when a non anonymous reviewer is hassled by the author?
You know, editors receive contributions from very diverse authors, not all fair, and even from sects (yes indeed).
Remember that reviewers are volounteers and benevolent.
If they should face to such authors, imagine the consequences, not only for the reviewers themselves, but for all the scientific
community: would reviewers still accept to help? I agree that anonymous review can be criticized, but until now it has more advantages than drawbacks.
About the double blind review, most time it is not useful, and this is discussed on the websites cited in a previous post.
Nevertheless, possibly it could make sense for some maths journals, eventually as an author choice.
May be that should be experienced.

All my best,

Michel Petitjean
MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7,
35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France.
Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372
E-mail: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred),
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 michel.petitjean * univ-paris-diderot.fr http://peti= tjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html

2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com <owner-chemistry * ccl.ne= t>:

>
> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=3D-=3Dgmail.com] Why should the
> names of the reviewers be confidential?=A0 It is only reasonable, given
> the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays
> "Science" that the authors of an art= icle be allowed to see who
> reviewed their work.=A0 As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on
> the topic of "Global Warming", revie= wers who object to your political
> views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny
> publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics.
>
> Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is
> not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work.
>
> Jim Kress
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net
> [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D= =3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of
> tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM
> To: Kress, Jim
> Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!
>
>
> Sent to CCL by: "tarzan=A0 p" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com] Dear All........
> It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to
> journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justified.
> But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and
> his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!!
> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...??
> Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of
> non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...?
>
> I hope to get some views.....
> with best wishes and happy computing
> ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bi= n/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/
> chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.n= et/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.cc= l.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt


the strange characters on the top line to the !=3D! sign. You can also

E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTR= Y!=3D!ccl.net or use:
=A0 =A0 =A0 http= ://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST!=3D!ccl.net or use
=A0 =A0 =A0 http= ://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message


=A0 =A0 =A0 http://= www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://w= ww.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml

=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/s= pammers.txt

RTFI: http:/= /www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/






--001a11c361dcbe366404f8a0d23b-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 02:56:01 2014 From: "Josh BERRYMAN Josh.Berryman- -uni.lu" To: CCL Subject: CCL: binding sites comparison for homologous proteins Message-Id: <-50024-140505020701-26496-bHKOgb5KkySlL43BIev/Cw###server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Josh BERRYMAN Content-Language: en-JM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 06:06:54 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Josh BERRYMAN [Josh.Berryman-x-uni.lu] You could try FEW ("free energy workflow"), I haven't used it myself yet but it seems to be aimed approximately in the direction of what you need, and it is one of the FOSS components of AMBER. Let me (or the list) know how you get on Josh ________________________________________ > From: owner-chemistry+josh.berryman==uni.lu===ccl.net [owner-chemistry+josh.berryman==uni.lu===ccl.net] on behalf of Andrew Voronkov drugdesign[*]yandex.ru [owner-chemistry===ccl.net] Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 11:11 AM To: Josh BERRYMAN Subject: CCL: binding sites comparison for homologous proteins Sent to CCL by: Andrew Voronkov [drugdesign=yandex.ru] Dear CCL users, I need to make comparison and selectivity analysis for the small ligands binding sites among multiple proteins from the same family. One way it to make pairwise superposition and manual analysis of all the interactions and amino acids. But is there a way or to automatize it? For example to write a script, which will analyze superimposed structures at ome distance from small molecule and make a list of different amino acids or maybe even which will make superposition of the structures and then analyze non-identical amino acids around small molecule? Is anything like that available? Best regards, Andreyhttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 08:16:01 2014 From: "Robert Molt r.molt.chemical.physics ~ gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50025-140505081500-26243-ZThP2BQfYlJGtkpeJ/XzLA|-|server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Robert Molt Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 08:14:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Robert Molt [r.molt.chemical.physics(!)gmail.com] Clarification, pursuant to some private correspondence given to me: the names I mentioned in my former email of great scientists (Dr. Bartlett and Dr. Cramer) were mentioned NOT to imply that there is something wrong with the higher esteem given to their names (my PhD advisor and MS advisor, respectively!). My point is simply that some rookie (me, for example) is not going to have a bias in his favor for the same work as someone who has already proven (him/her)self. I acknowledge this is not always a bad thing, but it defeats the point of meritocracy (success based on the specific paper and the paper alone, not anyone's past). I am hugely biased if I see a paper written by Anna Krylov or Don Truhlar. I am sure, in the recesses of my mind, I will *not* question it half as much as I would a name I did not know. That's not judging a paper on its own merits, its own logic. From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 08:51:00 2014 From: "Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz\a/hotmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50026-140505031906-5408-gb9EHjL0WCtMD5NZ66Sw1w : server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Demetra Dimetrodon" Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 03:19:04 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "Demetra Dimetrodon" [dpfiz * hotmail.com] Dear Dr. Ismail, What you say makes sense, but normally the decision about unsuitability takes at most a week or two. It is completely improbable for ALL reviewers (even say, three) contacted to all refuse. If so, I should have been informed that this most improbable scenario (all referees refusing to review) has in fact taken place. The fact that I wasn't contacted at any time during these two months, and was left to believe that my paper was being reviewed, means that my rights were trampled on. I'm willing to wager that this hasn't happened to anybody else. Moreover, the journal I subsequently sent my paper to seemed to have no issues with reviewers refusing to review. Could it be because this time, I explicitly requested for my former boss to not be a referee, due to conflict of interest? Dr. Ma, I beg to differ. The fact that the editor is not an active researcher makes the potential for her manipulation much greater than if she had a reputation to uphold in the scientific community. DD From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 09:26:00 2014 From: "Andreas Klamt klamt[-]cosmologic.de" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50027-140505043340-21315-0doRIZALcrdAlcOSKjjT9A*server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Andreas Klamt Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080401040108060806010709" Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 10:33:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt!=!cosmologic.de] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080401040108060806010709 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mehboob, finally you got it published. Congratulations! My COSMO paper had been rejected by the 3 journals which I considered as most appropriate. At that time I was completely unknown in the community. And finally I submitted it to a journal which was less appropriate from the reader community, but which occasionally had comp. chem papers. It got published there, and look, now it has ~3800 citation (Google Scholar). O.K., I need to admit that in parallel COSMO became part of MOPAC and it got exposure. Recently I had a paper which was accepted immediately in a widely read ACS journal, and which got 4 times 10 points, i.e. 10 points for quality and for importance by both reviewers. I was proud and happy, because I really considered (and still consider) it as one of my best papers. And what happened: The community is almost completely ignoring that paper. The world is not always fair, and this also holds for the world of scientific publication. You need patience and some power of endurance. I still believe that most of the really good ideas thus will finally be successful. Andreas P.S.: A final piece of advice for the non-natively English speaking authors: Really try you best to deliver your ideas in well readable and understandable English. Maybe get it proofread by colleagues. Although this is really unfair, because it gives a big advantage to the native English speaking scientists - I need to admit that I already have rejected quite a number of papers because I was unable to follow the arguments of the author due to the bad and confusing English. The insufficient English skills most likely correlate with the missing scientific experience and seniority, and hence may contribute to the impression that the papers of young, unknown and unexperienced researchers are more often rejected based on unfair reviewing. The best double blind review system would not help. Am 05.05.2014 07:58, schrieb Mehboob Alam mehboob.cu]*[gmail.com: > Hello everyone, > > I'm following the posts related to this issue, right from the > beginning. I read all the posts. I just want to say that my Boss also > boosted me to do a work and write a paper by myself (without my Boss's > name). Like Tarzan P. my paper was also rejected by two of the > journals (not at the editorial stage but it was sent for review and > reviewers rejected it). Then I submitted it to a third journal (after > answering the previous reviewer's comments) of comparatively less > impact factor and booommmm...it was accepted after a sort of major > revision. So, the conclusion is that it may happen that without a big > name the paper may be rejected (without proper justification) but > there are also good reviewers who don't search any big name before > evaluating a manuscript. I think rejection of a manuscript has its own > benefits (including improvement). Although nothing bad has happened > with me but I support the double-blind process. > > With best regards, > Md. Mehboob Alam > Senior Research Fellow - CSIR-INDIA > Department of Chemistry, > University of Calcutta > Kolkata - 700 009, India > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Robert Molt > r.molt.chemical.physics{=}gmail.com > > wrote: > > Well said, "Tarzan P." I understand arguments as to why keeping > reviewers anonymous is fine, but I see no justification for why > the reviewers should see the author's name. Has an argument yet > been given? > > Prestige matters. Meritocracy would seemingly be served by having > no names on either side or names on both. > > Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D. > r.molt.chemical.physics%x%gmail.com > Nigel Richards Research Group > Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology > Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis > LD 326 > 402 N. Blackford St. > Indianapolis, IN 46202 > > On 5/4/14 8:53 AM, tarzan p tarzan11_11#yahoo.com > wrote: >> Dear All... >> After having initiated the dialogue .. and reading the replies by >> lots of people and couple who are themselves editors and >> reviewers and some from whom I learn a lot reading their papers .. >> Want to share a personal experience ..: >> My benevolent boss asked me to go ahead and submit a single >> author paper to boost my job prospectus... I submitted .. zoop.. >> rejected by editor himself with out going for a review ... >> Journal B.. zoop again rejected by editor himself ... Not >> withstanding this .. I added my boss name .. journal C ( I pushed >> it to a journal .. which I never thought it will get through ..) >> .. done... went for a review and got accepted after minor >> revisions as suggested by two reviewers ... >> This many people will write off .. saying that this happed with >> me also .. two journals reject and a third might accept ..so what >> big deal .. >> I want to quote Mikael Johansson reply >> "But for younger researchers, it could be beneficial, both in >> removing some of the possible bias against their work, as well as >> in perhaps making them (us) feel more confident about the >> fairness of the system." >> >> It did make me feel .. "Is the reviewing process being fair or >> not ...??" >> A few things: >> 1. Only a handful of reviewers sign their names and I think it >> will take a long time for that to happen unless it becomes >> mandatory ... >> As an author .. I am interested in constructive criticism .. and >> am not interested to know who reviewed it .. and I am least >> concerned if someone signs it or not .... I would like to know >> if some one thinks otherwise .. why does he want to know who >> reviewed his paper .. ?? >> 2. Many said "double blind is a joke" as any competent reviewer >> gets to know whose paper is it .. .... OK let him guess ..but why >> tell him aprior ..? >> 3. It makes NO good/bad to the reviewer to know the author ... >> but it MIGHT effect the author, if the reviewer gets to know his >> name .. some of you might think I am not right .. but still >> ...Why not give the benefit of doubt to the diligent author ... >> After all this .. >> To have an close to unbiased process... >> what is the loss/problem for the editors to adopt a policy of >> nondisclosure of the author's name to the reviewer if it is going >> to bring more fairness to the system .... >> >> cheers !!! >> >> >> On Sunday, 4 May 2014, 4:30, Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com >> > >> wrote: >> >> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com >> ] >> " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." >> >> Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of >> the defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have >> commented herein. >> >> I salute the people who have responded that they sign their >> reviews. I applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in >> doing so. >> >> Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness >> and integrity should be willing to place their name on their >> actions. To do otherwise smacks of pusillanimity. >> >> Jim >> >> -----Original Message----- >> > From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com >> {:}ccl.net >> [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net >> ] On Behalf Of Michel Petitjean >> petitjean.chiral::gmail.com >> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM >> To: Kress, Jim >> Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! >> >> >> Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com >> ] As a past editor-in-chief of two journals, >> please let me add a reason why anonymous review is useful. >> Often, authors are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes the editor >> is hassled by unhappy authors (fortunately, not often). >> It is part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I >> did that). >> But imagine what could happen when a non anonymous reviewer is >> hassled by the author? >> You know, editors receive contributions from very diverse >> authors, not all fair, and even from sects (yes indeed). >> Remember that reviewers are volounteers and benevolent. >> If they should face to such authors, imagine the consequences, >> not only for the reviewers themselves, but for all the scientific >> community: would reviewers still accept to help? >> I agree that anonymous review can be criticized, but until now it >> has more advantages than drawbacks. >> About the double blind review, most time it is not useful, and >> this is discussed on the websites cited in a previous post. >> Nevertheless, possibly it could make sense for some maths >> journals, eventually as an author choice. >> May be that should be experienced. >> >> All my best, >> >> Michel Petitjean >> MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7, >> 35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. >> Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 >> E-mail: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred), >> michel.petitjean * univ-paris-diderot.fr >> >> http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html >> >> 2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com >> >: >> >> > >> > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com >> ] Why should the >> > names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only reasonable, >> given >> > the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays >> > "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who >> > reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media, >> e.g. on >> > the topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your >> political >> > views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny >> > publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity >> toward you and/or your politics. >> > >> > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific >> bias is >> > not allowed to interfere with the publication of their >> scientific work. >> > >> > Jim Kress >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com >> (-)ccl.net >> > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net >> ] On >> Behalf Of >> > tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com >> > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM >> > To: Kress, Jim >> > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! >> > >> > >> > Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com >> ] Dear All........ >> > It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to >> > journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are >> confidential. Justified. >> > But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the >> authors and >> > his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! >> > Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? >> > Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a >> policy of >> > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? >> > >> > I hope to get some views..... >> > with best wishes and happy computing >> > >> ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/ >> > >> chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt >> >> >> >> the strange characters on the top line to the !=! sign. You can also >> >> E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY!=!ccl.net >> or use:>> >> E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST!=!ccl.net >> or use>> > Conferences: >> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/>> >> >> >> > > -- Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt CEO / Geschäftsführer COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG Imbacher Weg 46 D-51379 Leverkusen, Germany phone +49-2171-731681 fax +49-2171-731689 e-mail klamt#,#cosmologic.de web www.cosmologic.de [University address: Inst. of Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Regensburg] HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt --------------080401040108060806010709 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mehboob,
finally you got it published. Congratulations!

My COSMO paper had been rejected by the 3 journals which I considered as most appropriate. At that time I was completely unknown in the community. And finally I submitted it to a journal which was less appropriate from the reader community, but which occasionally had comp. chem papers. It got published there, and look, now it has ~3800 citation (Google Scholar). O.K., I need to admit that in parallel COSMO became part of MOPAC and it got exposure.

Recently I had a paper which was accepted immediately in a widely read ACS journal, and which got 4 times 10 points, i.e. 10 points for quality and for importance by both reviewers. I was proud and happy, because I really considered (and still consider) it as one of my best papers. And what happened: The community is almost completely ignoring that paper.

The world is not always fair, and this also holds for the world of scientific publication. You need patience and some power of endurance. I still believe that most of the really good ideas thus will finally be successful.

Andreas
P.S.: A final piece of advice for the non-natively English speaking authors: Really try you best to deliver your ideas in well readable and understandable English. Maybe get it proofread by colleagues. Although this is really unfair, because it gives a big advantage to the native English speaking scientists - I need to admit that I already have rejected quite a number of papers because I was unable to follow the arguments of the author due to the bad and confusing English. The insufficient English skills most likely correlate with the missing scientific experience and seniority, and hence may contribute to the impression that the papers of young, unknown and unexperienced researchers are more often rejected based on unfair reviewing. The best double blind review system would not help.



Am 05.05.2014 07:58, schrieb Mehboob Alam mehboob.cu]*[gmail.com:
Hello everyone,

I'm following the posts related to this issue, right from the beginning. I read all the posts. I just want to say that my Boss also boosted me to do a work and write a paper by myself (without my Boss's name). Like Tarzan P. my paper was also rejected by two of the journals (not at the editorial stage but it was sent for review and reviewers rejected it). Then I submitted it to a third journal (after answering the previous reviewer's comments) of comparatively less impact factor and booommmm...it was accepted after a sort of major revision. So, the conclusion is that it may happen that without a big name the paper may be rejected (without proper justification) but  there are also good reviewers who don't search any big name before evaluating a manuscript. I think rejection of a manuscript has its own benefits (including improvement). Although nothing bad has happened with me but I support the double-blind process.

With best regards,
Md. Mehboob Alam
Senior Research Fellow - CSIR-INDIA
Department of Chemistry,
University of Calcutta
Kolkata - 700 009, India


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Robert Molt r.molt.chemical.physics{=}gmail.com <owner-chemistry*ccl.net> wrote:
Well said, "Tarzan P."  I understand arguments as to why keeping reviewers anonymous is fine, but I see no justification for why the reviewers should see the author's name.  Has an argument yet been given?

Prestige matters.  Meritocracy would seemingly be served by having no names on either side or names on both.
Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.
r.molt.chemical.physics%x%gmail.com
Nigel Richards Research Group
Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
LD 326
402 N. Blackford St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
On 5/4/14 8:53 AM, tarzan p tarzan11_11#yahoo.com wrote:
Dear All...
After having initiated the dialogue .. and reading the replies by lots of people and couple who are themselves editors and reviewers and some from whom I learn a lot reading their papers ..
Want to share a personal experience ..:
My benevolent boss asked me to go ahead and submit a single author paper to boost my job prospectus...  I submitted .. zoop.. rejected by editor himself  with out going for a review ... Journal B.. zoop again rejected by editor himself ... Not withstanding this .. I added my boss name .. journal C ( I pushed it to a journal .. which I never thought it will get through ..) .. done... went for a review and got accepted after minor revisions as suggested by two reviewers ...
This many people will write off .. saying that this happed with me also .. two journals reject and a third might accept ..so what big deal ..
I want to quote Mikael Johansson reply
"But for younger researchers, it could be beneficial, both in removing some of the possible bias against their work, as well as in perhaps making them (us) feel more confident about the  fairness of the system."

It did make me feel .. "Is the reviewing process being fair or not ...??"
A few things:
1. Only a handful of reviewers sign their names and I think it will take a long time for that to happen unless it becomes mandatory ...
As an author .. I am interested in constructive criticism .. and am not interested to know who reviewed it .. and I am least concerned if someone signs it or not  .... I would like to know if some one thinks otherwise .. why does he want to know who reviewed his paper .. ??
2. Many said "double blind is a joke" as any competent reviewer gets to know whose paper is it .. .... OK let him guess ..but why tell him aprior ..?
3. It makes NO good/bad to the reviewer to know the author ... but it MIGHT effect the author, if the reviewer gets to know his name  .. some of you might think I am not right .. but still ...Why not give the benefit of doubt to the diligent author ...
After all this ..
To have an close to unbiased process...
what is the loss/problem for the editors to adopt a policy of nondisclosure of the author's name to the reviewer if it is going to bring more fairness to the system ....

cheers !!!


On Sunday, 4 May 2014, 4:30, Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com <owner-chemistry!=!ccl.net> wrote:

Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com]
" Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent."

Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. 

I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews.  I applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so.

Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions.  To do otherwise smacks of pusillanimity.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net] On Behalf Of Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral::gmail.com
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM
To: Kress, Jim
Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!


Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] As a past editor-in-chief of two journals, please let me add a reason why anonymous review is useful.
Often, authors are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes the editor is hassled by unhappy authors (fortunately, not often).
It is part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I did that).
But imagine what could happen when a non anonymous reviewer is hassled by the author?
You know, editors receive contributions from very diverse authors, not all fair, and even from sects (yes indeed).
Remember that reviewers are volounteers and benevolent.
If they should face to such authors, imagine the consequences, not only for the reviewers themselves, but for all the scientific
community: would reviewers still accept to help?
I agree that anonymous review can be criticized, but until now it has more advantages than drawbacks.
About the double blind review, most time it is not useful, and this is discussed on the websites cited in a previous post.
Nevertheless, possibly it could make sense for some maths journals, eventually as an author choice.
May be that should be experienced.

All my best,

Michel Petitjean
MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7,
35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France.
Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372
E-mail: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred),
        michel.petitjean * univ-paris-diderot.fr http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html

2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com <owner-chemistry * ccl.net>:

>
> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com] Why should the
> names of the reviewers be confidential?  It is only reasonable, given
> the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays
> "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who
> reviewed their work.  As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on
> the topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political
> views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny
> publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics.
>
> Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is
> not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work.
>
> Jim Kress
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net
> [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of
> tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM
> To: Kress, Jim
> Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!
>
>
> Sent to CCL by: "tarzan  p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] Dear All........
> It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to
> journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justified.
> But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and
> his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!!
> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...??
> Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of
> non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...?
>
> I hope to get some views.....
> with best wishes and happy computing
> ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/
> chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt


the strange characters on the top line to the !=! sign. You can also

E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY!=!ccl.net or use:
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST!=!ccl.net or use
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message 




-- 
Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
CEO / Geschäftsführer
COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG
Imbacher Weg 46
D-51379 Leverkusen, Germany

phone  	+49-2171-731681
fax    	+49-2171-731689
e-mail 	klamt#,#cosmologic.de
web    	www.cosmologic.de

[University address:      Inst. of Physical and
Theoretical Chemistry, University of Regensburg]

HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH
HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
--------------080401040108060806010709-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 10:01:00 2014 From: "Wolfram Koch w.koch:_:gdch.de" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50028-140505081121-26015-hXK9gq9tkMHHpzy6TvlSpA~~server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Wolfram Koch" Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 08:11:19 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "Wolfram Koch" [w.koch[]gdch.de] Dear CCL readers, I am Wolfram Koch and I am the Executive Director the Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker (GDCh), the German Chemical Society. The GDCh is part of ChemPubSoc Europe, the consortium of 16 European chemical societies which owns a number of prestigious chemistry journals, including ChemPhysChem. In my previous life as a practicing scientist I also happened to be a computational chemist. Some of you might remember my book A Chemists Guide to DFT, which I wrote with my former co-worker M. Holthausen a number of years ago. The reason why, after many years, I come back to the CCL is the message from last Saturday by "Demetra Dimetrodon" and the accusations she raises against the editor-in-chief of our journal ChemPhysChem. Her allegations deeply upset me and I feel obliged to set the record straight: First, the article in question was indeed sent out for review, but unfortunately the reviewers did not respond (I have seen the documentation). Second, the behavior of the editor-in-chief was not totally out of line but fully adequate and finds my approval. Third, the correspondence by the editor was certainly not extremely rude and condescending but rather polite and appropriate (but you should see the authors letters!). Fourth, it is true that the editor is not an active scientist anymore but works as a full time editor with the publisher. We use this model with great success for all our journals, including Angewandte Chemie. I strongly reject the imputations that such editors lack the scientific integrity needed for this responsible job and that they are likely to be manipulated. This is outrageous! By the way, all editors-in-chief of our journals, including of course ChemPhysChems, have to approved by the owner societies and need a proven record of a successful scientific career. Let me re-iterate, the co-owners of ChemPhysChem are respected chemical societies. Our aim is to produce high-quality journals with which we serve the chemical community and fulfill our statutory task of dissemination of research findings. The accusations brought up by Demetra Dimetrodon are simply pointless and inappropriate. To conclude, there was definitely nothing sinister behind the decision to reject the ms. While I understand the frustration of an author whose paper gets rejected, this must not lead to personal and fully unjustified accusations which, to make it even worse, are made public to a greater audience. Such a behavior poisons the relationship between the various players in the publication process and should not be tolerated by our scientific community. Best regards Wolfram Prof. Dr. Wolfram Koch Geschftsfhrer / Executive Director Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker / German Chemical Society Varrentrappstr. 40-42 60486 Frankfurt am Main Tel.: +49 (0)69 7917 320 Fax : +49 (0)69 7917 1320 w.koch _ gdch.de www.gdch.de (English: www.gdch.de/home.html) From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 10:36:00 2014 From: "Victor Rosas Garcia rosas.victor _ gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50029-140505081852-27285-rwbWIatBll1nH9WbQnS8bA]_[server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Victor Rosas Garcia Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3923e6e7a8204f8a62093 Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 07:18:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Victor Rosas Garcia [rosas.victor[-]gmail.com] --001a11c3923e6e7a8204f8a62093 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To extend on what Robert Molt said, I may be another village idiot, as I have never identified any of the reviewers to my papers either. Really, I couldn't care less about the identity of a reviewer, all I care is the quality of the review. Once it happened that one of my papers was rejected because of "poor quality" and "missing to cite" such-and-such "important paper". The "important paper" in question was actually part of the list of references! I understood that the reviewer had done a shoddy work, and I resubmitted to another journal. The paper got accepted by a journal with a better impact factor (FWIW) than the first one who rejected it. On other occasions, reviews that led to rejection have actually been helpful in improving the quality of the paper. Perhaps in these cases I would like to know the identity of the reviewers, so I could thank them personally. In such cases, I have always expressed my appreciation to the editor. Going back to the original message, I do think that taking two months to find out that a paper is not within the scope of a journal is a little too long, after all, it is the editor who defines the scope of the journal. The editor should be able to see if a given paper fits the journal right away. It happened to me once: I got a paper rejected by the editor the following day after my submission, stating that it was not within the scope of the journal. But I also think that the current system could be improved by double-blinding. When I was a grad student I saw it happen: a professor decided to grade the final term papers in a graduate level class only by looking at the contents, identifying the papers by codes, not the students's names (the code-name key was in sealed envelopes provided by each student, I think). Not only the professor, but a lot of people got surprised at the resulting grades, as some "great" students failed and some "so-and-so" students got top grades. Just my two cents. Victor 2014-05-04 18:25 GMT-05:00 Robert Molt r.molt.chemical.physics[-]gmail.com = < owner-chemistry(!)ccl.net>: > I find it absurd how many people are claiming how "obvious" it is to > identify reviewers/authors of papers. Empirically, this is not true. Th= e > people claiming how obvious this is apparently have forgotten what it is > like to be a newer scientist in the field, and not have decades of > experience to have met "everyone" and know the writing styles of "everyon= e" > while they are just a graduate student writing papers. > > Perhaps I am just the village idiot, but I've not been able to identify > the reviewers of my 7 papers. > > Regardless, the "obviousness" of identities does not have any logical > bearing on the question proposed: why show the names of paper's authors? > If the anonymity of the reviewers is precious (reasonable), why is the > anonymity of the submitters any less precious? > > Of course I take any paper written by Dr. Bartlett or Dr. Cramer more > seriously...they are great scientists. Of course I will be biased in the= ir > favor, whereas the exact same publication from some loser named Robert Mo= lt > would require a greater hurdle. > > Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.r.molt.chemical.physics,,gmail.com > Nigel Richards Research Group > Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology > Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis > LD 326 > 402 N. Blackford St. > Indianapolis, IN 46202 > > On 5/4/14 1:14 PM, Jack Miller jmiller * brocku.ca wrote: > > I am a retired chemist and VP Research, still tying up loose end of 40+ > years of lab results. My wife is retired dramatic arts Prof, Some of her > papers too over a year to get the reviews back, which is also the case is > disciplines such as Math and Computer Science. > > My wife used to get manuscripts to review with the author's name > suppressed - it being a relatively small field, and in almost all cases s= he > could identify the author, and for reviews of her own papers, books and > grant applications she was almost always sure who the anonymous referees > were. > > In chemistry I could very often identify the referees for my nearly 200 > papers. If the authors were anonymous they would still be identifiable by > the references or the instrumentation used or as one of my mentors used s= ay > he could identify the referee who was still making the same grammar > mistakes made in their thesis. > > What we have works - don't reinvent the wheel. > > > > Prof. Jack Miller > Special Advisor on Buildings & Space, > Emeritus Professor of Chemistry > Brock University. > > Jmiller^-^brocku.ca > Sent from my iPad > > On May 4, 2014, at 4:33 AM, "Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com" < > owner-chemistry^-^ccl.net> wrote: > > I vote for the "triple-blind" review: Nobody knows the reviewers, the > authors, or the editors! > > On 5/3/2014 3:11 PM, Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat wrote: > > I just wanted to add that highly high-profile journals like Angewandte, > Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in research, > but I would doubt seriously that this would make them incompetent. > > Like Michel said, two months is nothing, it is not unusual to have a > period of between 2 months and one year between first submission > and final acceptance. It reminds me of an Editorial I=E2=80=99ve recently= read, > about how to write a paper and how to deal with the reviewing process. > See: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cm501152b > > Good luck with the paper! > > Marcel > > On 2014-05-03, at 09:13, Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz- -hotmail.com < > owner-chemistry---ccl.net> wrote: > > Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result > in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my case > two > months. Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be > active in research at all, something which is completely unheard of for a > high- > profile journal. > > ---------- > Demetra Dimetrodon > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart > > ICREA Research Professor at > Institut de Qu=C3=ADmica Computacional i Cat=C3=A0lisi > Universitat de Girona > > Facultat de Ci=C3=A8ncies > Campus Montilivi > 17071 Girona > Catalunya (Spain) > > tel > +34-972-418861 > fax > +34-972-418356 > e-mail > marcel.swart---icrea.cat > marcel.swart---udg.edu > web > http://www.marcelswart.eu > vCard > addressbook://www.marcelswart.eu/MSwart.vcf > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > > > > > -- > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ..........Sebastian Kozuch........... > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ......University of North Texas...... > ..........Denton, Texas, USA......... > ........ seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com .......http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/kozuch= .htm > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > --001a11c3923e6e7a8204f8a62093 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To extend on what Robert Molt said, I = may be another village idiot, as I have never identified any of the reviewe= rs to my papers either. Really, I couldn't care less about the identity= of a reviewer, all I care is the quality of the review. Once it happened t= hat one of my papers was rejected because of "poor quality" and &= quot;missing to cite" such-and-such "important paper". The &= quot;important paper" in question was actually part of the list of ref= erences! I understood that the reviewer had done a shoddy work, and I resub= mitted to another journal. The paper got accepted by a journal with a bette= r impact factor (FWIW) than the first one who rejected it.

On other occasions, reviews that led to rejection have actually b= een helpful in improving the quality of the paper.=C2=A0 Perhaps in these c= ases I would like to know the identity of the reviewers, so I could thank t= hem personally. In such cases, I have always expressed my appreciation to t= he editor.

Going back to the original message, I do think that taking two mo= nths to find out that a paper is not within the scope of a journal is a lit= tle too long, after all, it is the editor who defines the scope of the jour= nal. The editor should be able to see if a given paper fits the journal rig= ht away.=C2=A0 It happened to me once: I got a paper rejected by the editor= the following day after my submission, stating that it was not within the = scope of the journal.

But I also think that the current system could be improved by dou= ble-blinding.=C2=A0 When I was a grad student I saw it happen: a professor = decided to grade the final term papers in a graduate level class only by lo= oking at the contents, identifying the papers by codes, not the students= 9;s names (the code-name key was in sealed envelopes provided by each stude= nt, I think).=C2=A0 Not only the professor, but a lot of people got surpris= ed at the resulting grades, as some "great" students failed and s= ome "so-and-so" students got top grades.


Just my two cents.

Victor


2014-05-04 18:25 GMT-= 05:00 Robert Molt r.molt.chemical.physics[-]gm= ail.com <owner-chemistry(!)ccl.net>:
=20 =20 =20
I find it absurd how many people are claiming how "obvious" it is to identify reviewers/authors = of papers.=C2=A0 Empirically, this is not true.=C2=A0 The people claimin= g how obvious this is apparently have forgotten what it is like to be a newer scientist in the field, and not have decades of experience to have met "everyone" and know the writing styles of "= ;everyone" while they are just a graduate student writing papers.

Perhaps I am just the village idiot, but I've not been able to identify the reviewers of my 7 papers.

Regardless, the "obviousness" of identities does not have a= ny logical bearing on the question proposed: why show the names of paper's authors?=C2=A0 If the anonymity of the reviewers is preci= ous (reasonable), why is the anonymity of the submitters any less precious?

Of course I take any paper written by Dr. Bartlett or Dr. Cramer more seriously...they are great scientists.=C2=A0 Of course I will be biased in their favor, whereas the exact same publication from some loser named Robert Molt would require a greater hurdle.
Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.
r.m=
olt.chemical.physics,,gmail.com
Nigel Richards Research Group
Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
LD 326
402 N. Blackford St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
On 5/4/14 1:14 PM, Jack Miller jmiller * brocku.ca wrote:
=20
I am a retired chemist and VP Research, still tying up loose end of 40+ years of lab results. My wife is =C2=A0retired dramatic arts Prof, Some of her papers too over a year to get the reviews back, which is also the case is disciplines such as Math and Computer Science.=C2=A0

My wife used to get manuscripts to review with the author's name suppressed - it being a relatively small field, and in almost all cases she could identify the author, and for reviews of her own papers, books and grant applications she was almost always sure who the anonymous referees were.=C2=A0

In chemistry I could very often =C2=A0identify the referees for = my nearly 200 papers. If the authors were anonymous they would still be identifiable by the references or the instrumentation used or as one of my mentors used say he could identify the referee who was still making the same grammar mistakes made in their thesis.

What we have works - don't reinvent the wheel.



Prof. Jack Miller
Special Advisor on Buildings & Space,
Emeritus Professor of Chemistry
Brock University.

Sent from my iPad

On May 4, 2014, at 4:33 AM, "Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch*_*gmail.com" <owner-chemistry^-^ccl.net> wrote:

I vote for the "triple-blind" review: Nobody knows the reviewers, the authors, or the editors!

On 5/3/2014 3:11 PM, Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat wrote:
I just wanted to add that highly high-profile journals like Angewandte,
Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in research,
but I would doubt seriously that this would make them incompetent.

Like Michel said, two months is nothing, it is not unusual to have a
period of between 2 months and one year between first submission
and final acceptance. It reminds me of an Editorial I=E2=80=99ve recently read,
about how to write a paper and how to deal with the reviewing process.

Good luck with the paper!

Marcel


Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result=C2=A0
in a h= uge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my case two=C2=A0
months= . Then again, the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be=C2= =A0
active= in research at all, something which is completely unheard of for a high-
profil= e journal.

------= ----
Demetr= a Dimetrodon


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart

ICREA Research Professor at
Institut de Qu=C3=ADmica Computacional i Cat=C3=A0lisi<= br> Universitat de Girona

Facultat de Ci=C3=A8ncies
Campus Montilivi
17071 Girona
Catalunya (Spain)

tel
+34-972-418861
fax
+34-972-418356
e-mail
marcel.swart---icrea.cat
marcel.swart---udg.edu
web
http://www.marcelswart.eu
vCard
addressbook://www.marcelswart.eu/MSwart.vcf
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 







--=20
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..........Sebastian Kozuch...........
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
......University of North Texas......
..........Denton, Texas, USA.........
........ seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com .......
http://=
yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/kozuch.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--001a11c3923e6e7a8204f8a62093-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 11:11:00 2014 From: "FyD fyd()q4md-forcefieldtools.org" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Empirical force fields: release new version of RED Server Dev/PyRED Message-Id: <-50030-140505070408-23198-mvqMLjMh3OyXTz5eojmBRg]^[server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: FyD Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 13:03:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: FyD [fyd. .. .q4md-forcefieldtools.org] Dear All, In the context of a joined French-USA research project between the Universite de Picardie - Jules Verne and the Sanford|Burnham Medical Research Institute I am pleased to announce the release of the May 2014 version of the RED Python program, or PyRED, interfaced by R.E.D. Server Development at q4md-forcefieldtools.org: http://q4md-forcefieldtools.org/REDServer-Development R.E.D. Server Development is a service designed to generate force field parameters and build force field libraries for new molecules/molecular fragments. This Internet site provides the software and hardware resources required for the generation of AMBER and GLYCAM type empirical force fields, that can be used by computational biologists involved in force field based structural studies. CHARMM and OPLS force fields can also be targeted by applying user-defined options. All researchers from the academic world and from private laboratories can use R.E.D. Server Development, and registration to use R.E.D. Server Development is not mandatory. PyRED was presented at the 247th ACS National Meeting in Dallas (TX, USA) last March 2014: http://abstracts.acs.org//chem/247nm/program/view.php?pub_num=277&par=COMP New documentation is available at: http://q4md-forcefieldtools.org/REDServer-Development/Documentation/ Latest news: http://q4md-forcefieldtools.org/REDServer-Development/news.php Frequently asked questions: http://q4md-forcefieldtools.org/REDServer-Development/faq.php A new tutorial is now available: http://q4md-forcefieldtools.org/Tutorial/ http://q4md-forcefieldtools.org/Tutorial/Tutorial-4.php Users of the R.E.D. III.x tools and of R.E.D. Server (interface of the Ante_RED 2.0 and R.E.D. IV program) are strongly encouraged to switch to R.E.D. Server Development/PyRED. Funding of this project is provided by the Conseil Regional de Picardie and the European Regional Development Fund. regards, Francois F.-Y. Dupradeau --- http://q4md-forcefieldtools.org/FyD/ From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 11:46:00 2014 From: "Igor Filippov igor.v.filippov|,|gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50031-140505111132-26468-00mYaoezAJC/fQPxurBtgQ]|[server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Igor Filippov Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f23439753cc9504f8a88bb2 Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:11:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Igor Filippov [igor.v.filippov-$-gmail.com] --e89a8f23439753cc9504f8a88bb2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt : cosmologic.de] >Trying to anonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in >the field many reviewers will immediately know who wrote the submitted >manuscript. This leads nowhere. This seems to pre-suppose that all interesting research is done only by well-established scientists. I guess work done by a (relatively) younger and not well known person will just fly under the radar. I've certainly seen very interesting work submitted by people whose names did not ring any bells for me, and I would certainly hope that if I publish something outside of my usual field it will be reviewed based on its merits and not based on the fact whether or not it has a well-known professor in the author list. Best regards, Igor -------- Original Message -------- Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:15:04 +0200 > From: Andreas Klamt klamt++cosmologic.de Reply-To: CCL Subscribers To: Filippov, Igor Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt : cosmologic.de] Trying to anonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in the field many reviewers will immediately know who wrote the submitted manuscript. This leads nowhere. Basically I vote for double-open. Indeed, I often already wrote my name into a review, because the authors would anyway have identified me as reviewer. If I have good arguments to criticize or reject an article, I have no problem to stand to these. I need not be protected by anonymity. But the problem is that this system would reduce the number of reviewers to those who are sufficiently independent. And this minority will most likely be unable to stand the flood of manuscripts. Really a hopeless situation: I am afraid, that we will have to live with the current system. Regards Andreas Am 02.05.2014 07:21, schrieb Francois Berenger berenger]|[riken.jp: > > Sent to CCL by: Francois Berenger [berenger+/-riken.jp] > I heard some computer science conferences do this: > submitted manuscripts are anonymized. > > On 05/02/2014 12:19 PM, tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com wrote: >> Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com] >> Dear All........ >> It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to >> journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are >> confidential. Justified. >> But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors >> and his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! >> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? >> Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of >> non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? >> >> I hope to get some views..... >> with best wishes and happy computing ....> >> > > -- Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt CEO / Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG Imbacher Weg 46 D-51379 Leverkusen, Germany phone +49-2171-731681 fax +49-2171-731689 e-mail klamt-.-cosmologic.de web www.cosmologic.de [University address: Inst. of Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Regensburg] HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt -=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt. --e89a8f23439753cc9504f8a88bb2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt :=C2=A0cosmologic.de]
>Trying to a= nonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in
>the field many reviewers will immed= iately know who wrote the submitted
>manuscript.= This leads nowhere.

This seems to pre-suppose that all interesting research= is done only by well-established scientists.
I guess work done by a (relatively) younger and = not well known person will just fly under the radar.
I've certainly seen very interesting work submitted by people= whose names did not ring any bells for me,
and I would certainly hope that if I publish som= ething =C2=A0outside of my usual field it will be
reviewed based on its merits and not based on the fact whether or no= t it has =C2=A0a well-known professor
in the author list.


Best regards,
Igor

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:15:04 +0200
> From: Andreas Klamt klamt++cosmologic.de <owner-c= hemistry:-:ccl.net>
Reply-To: CCL Subscribers <chemistr= y:-:ccl.net>
To: Filippov, Igor <igor= f:-:helix.nih.gov>


Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt : cosmologic.de]
Trying to anonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in the field many reviewers will immediately know who wrote the submitted
manuscript. This leads nowhere.

Basically I vote for double-open. Indeed, I often already wrote my name
into a review, because the authors would anyway have identified me as
reviewer. If I have good arguments to criticize or reject an article, I
have no problem to stand to these. I need not be protected by anonymity.
But the problem is that this system would reduce the number of reviewers to those who are sufficiently independent. And this minority will most
likely be unable to stand the flood of manuscripts.

Really a hopeless situation: I am afraid, that we will have to live with the current system.

Regards

Andreas

Am 02.05.2014 07:21, schrieb Francois Berenger berenger]|[riken.jp:
>
> Sent to CCL by: Francois Berenger [berenger+/-riken.jp]
> I heard some computer science conferences do this:
> submitted manuscripts are anonymized.
>
> On 05/02/2014 12:19 PM, tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com wrote:
>> Sent to CCL by: "tarzan =C2=A0p" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com]
>> Dear All........
>> It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to >> journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are
>> confidential. Justified.
>> But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors=
>> and his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! >> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...??
>> Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy = of
>> non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...?
>>
>> I hope to get some views.....
>> with best wishes and happy computing ....>
>>
>
>


--
Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
CEO / Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer
COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG
Imbacher Weg 46
D-51379 Leverkusen, Germany

phone =C2=A0 +49-= 2171-731681
fax =C2=A0 =C2=A0 +49-2171-731689
e-mail =C2=A0klamt-.-cos= mologic.de
web =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ww= w.cosmologic.de

[University address: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Inst. of Physical and
Theoretical Chemistry, University of Regensburg]

HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH
HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt



-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-=
E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY:-:ccl.n= et or use:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message=

E-mail to administrators: CHEM= ISTRY-REQUEST:-:ccl.net or use
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message=

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.n= et/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/co= nferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/


.




--e89a8f23439753cc9504f8a88bb2-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 13:04:01 2014 From: "Mehboob Alam mehboob.cu(_)gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50032-140505130314-15836-k06cVCtpm+0C5uOdaYb2Ng]^[server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Mehboob Alam Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011618cef3386804f8aa1a8e Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 22:33:06 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Mehboob Alam [mehboob.cu~~gmail.com] --089e011618cef3386804f8aa1a8e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt. Yes, finally I got it published :-) With best regards, Md. Mehboob Alam Senior Research Fellow - CSIR-INDIA Department of Chemistry, University of Calcutta Kolkata - 700 009, India On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Igor Filippov igor.v.filippov|,|gmail.com < owner-chemistry^ccl.net> wrote: > >Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt : cosmologic.de] > >Trying to anonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in > >the field many reviewers will immediately know who wrote the submitted > >manuscript. This leads nowhere. > > This seems to pre-suppose that all interesting research is done only by > well-established scientists. > I guess work done by a (relatively) younger and not well known person wil= l > just fly under the radar. > I've certainly seen very interesting work submitted by people whose names > did not ring any bells for me, > and I would certainly hope that if I publish something outside of my > usual field it will be > reviewed based on its merits and not based on the fact whether or not it > has a well-known professor > in the author list. > > > Best regards, > Igor > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:15:04 +0200 > > From: Andreas Klamt klamt++cosmologic.de > Reply-To: CCL Subscribers > To: Filippov, Igor > > > Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt : cosmologic.de] > Trying to anonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in > the field many reviewers will immediately know who wrote the submitted > manuscript. This leads nowhere. > > Basically I vote for double-open. Indeed, I often already wrote my name > into a review, because the authors would anyway have identified me as > reviewer. If I have good arguments to criticize or reject an article, I > have no problem to stand to these. I need not be protected by anonymity. > > But the problem is that this system would reduce the number of reviewers > to those who are sufficiently independent. And this minority will most > likely be unable to stand the flood of manuscripts. > > Really a hopeless situation: I am afraid, that we will have to live with > the current system. > > Regards > > Andreas > > Am 02.05.2014 07:21, schrieb Francois Berenger berenger]|[riken.jp: > > > > Sent to CCL by: Francois Berenger [berenger+/-riken.jp] > > I heard some computer science conferences do this: > > submitted manuscripts are anonymized. > > > > > On 05/02/2014 12:19 PM, tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com wrote: > >> Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com] > >> Dear All........ > >> It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to > >> journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are > >> confidential. Justified. > >> But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors > >> and his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! > >> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? > >> Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of > >> non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? > >> > >> I hope to get some views..... > >> with best wishes and happy computing ....> > >> > > > > > > > -- > Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt > CEO / Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer > COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG > Imbacher Weg 46 > D-51379 Leverkusen, Germany > > phone +49-2171-731681 > fax +49-2171-731689 > e-mail klamt-.-cosmologic.de > > web www.cosmologic.de > > [University address: Inst. of Physical and > Theoretical Chemistry, University of Regensburg] > > HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt > Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH > HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt > > > > -=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script = =3D- > E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY() ccl.net or use:> > E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST() ccl.net or use> > > . > > > > > --089e011618cef3386804f8aa1a8e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt. Yes, finally I got it publ= ished :-)

With best regards,
Md. Mehboob Alam
Senior Research Fellow - CS= IR-INDIA
Department of Chemistry,
University of Calcutta
Ko= lkata - 700 009, India


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Igor Fil= ippov igor.v.filippov|,|gmail.com <= owner-chemistry^ccl.net> wrote:
>Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt := =A0cosmologic.de]
>Trying to a= nonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in
>the field many reviewers will immed= iately know who wrote the submitted
>manuscript.= This leads nowhere.

This seems to pre-suppose that all interesting research= is done only by well-established scientists.
I guess work done by a (relatively) younger and = not well known person will just fly under the radar.
I've certainly seen very interesting work submitted by people= whose names did not ring any bells for me,
and I would certainly hope that if I publish som= ething =A0outside of my usual field it will be
reviewed based on its merits and not based on the fact whether or not i= t has =A0a well-known professor
in the author list.


Best regards,
Igor

<= br> -------- Original Message --------
Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:15:04 +0200
> From: Andreas Klamt klamt++cosmologic.de <owner-chemistry() ccl.net>
Reply-To: CCL Subscribers <chemistry() ccl.net>
To: Filippov, Igor <igorf() helix.nih.gov>


Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt : cosmologic.de]
Trying to anonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in the field many reviewers will immediately know who wrote the submitted
manuscript. This leads nowhere.

Basically I vote for double-open. Indeed, I often already wrote my name
into a review, because the authors would anyway have identified me as
reviewer. If I have good arguments to criticize or reject an article, I
have no problem to stand to these. I need not be protected by anonymity.
But the problem is that this system would reduce the number of reviewers to those who are sufficiently independent. And this minority will most
likely be unable to stand the flood of manuscripts.

Really a hopeless situation: I am afraid, that we will have to live with the current system.

Regards

Andreas

Am 02.05.2014 07:21, schrieb Francois Berenger berenger]|[riken.jp:
>
> Sent to CCL by: Francois Berenger [berenger+/-riken.jp]
> I heard some computer science conferences do this:
> submitted manuscripts are anonymized.

>
> On 05/02/2014 12:19 PM, tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com wrote:
>> Sent to CCL by: "tarzan =A0p" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com]
>> Dear All........
>> It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to >> journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are
>> confidential. Justified.
>> But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors=
>> and his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! >> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...??
>> Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy = of
>> non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...?
>>
>> I hope to get some views.....
>> with best wishes and happy computing ....>
>>
>
>


--
Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
CEO / Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer
COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG
Imbacher Weg 46
D-51379 Leverkusen, Germany

phone =A0 +49-2171-731681
fax =A0 =A0 +49-2171-731689
e-mail =A0klamt-.-cosmol= ogic.de

web =A0 =A0 www.cosm= ologic.de

[University address: =A0 =A0 =A0Inst. of Physical and
Theoretical Chemistry, University of Regensburg]

HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH
HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt



-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-=
E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY() ccl.net or use:
=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST() ccl.net or use
=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.n= et/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/co= nferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml
=A0 =A0 =A0 h= ttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/


.





--089e011618cef3386804f8aa1a8e-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 14:09:00 2014 From: "AYYAZ MAHMOOD AYYAZCMC _ GMAIL.COM" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: Using SRP modified paramteres Message-Id: <-50033-140505140813-12241-VkVgULrYi8DiPPf+RZ0e8A::server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "AYYAZ MAHMOOD" Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 14:08:12 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "AYYAZ MAHMOOD" [AYYAZCMC _ GMAIL.COM] HI, I have modified semi-empirical (RM1) parameters for a reaction using specific reaction parameterization (SRP) approach. Now I want to use new modified parameters to perform dynamics, but how to use them in the input. I saw on the Gaussian site (http://www.gaussian.com/g_tech/g_ur/k_semiempirical.htm) but it is not very descriptive. It could not help me. Anyone, can please help to prepare the input file using these new modified parameters to perform dynamics. I shall appreciate any help. Thanks From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 14:45:00 2014 From: "Demetra Dimetrodon dpfiz^^hotmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50034-140505135441-5576-cJ33iu7WORPfWEq0nbDjDQ%%server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Demetra Dimetrodon" Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 13:54:40 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "Demetra Dimetrodon" [dpfiz]=[hotmail.com] We've come to the conclusion therefore that two months is not long to wait for an article to be returned back to the author without being reviewed, and where the author was not informed of any difficulty in getting reviewers so that they could back out earlier. Strange that the journal it was subsequently sent to, in exactly the same form, with the same referee suggestions, had absolutely no trouble finding reviewers fairly quickly. Nor the one beforehand, in which one reviewer made excessive demands, but that's a different story. I am not implying that full-time editors are corrupt in any way. I just said that it could be harder to hold them accountable to the scientific community. This is just an opinion. There is another side I'm sure, such as that they are more devoted to their job. Because in this situation, I suspected that there could be misconduct, particularly since the Chairmen of the Editorial Board did not reply to my complaint, I decided to air out my concerns in public to see whether others have had similar experiences. If this is ok with the majority, then I hold my hands up in disbelief. DD > "Wolfram Koch w.koch:_:gdch.de" wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Wolfram Koch" [w.koch[]gdch.de] > Dear CCL readers, > > I am Wolfram Koch and I am the Executive Director the Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker (GDCh), the German Chemical Society. The GDCh is part of ChemPubSoc Europe, the consortium of 16 European chemical societies which owns a number of prestigious chemistry journals, including ChemPhysChem. In my previous life as a practicing scientist I also happened to be a computational chemist. Some of you might remember my book A Chemists Guide to DFT, which I wrote with my former co-worker M. Holthausen a number of years ago. > > The reason why, after many years, I come back to the CCL is the message > from last Saturday by "Demetra Dimetrodon" and the accusations she raises against the editor-in-chief of our journal ChemPhysChem. Her allegations deeply upset me and I feel obliged to set the record straight: > > First, the article in question was indeed sent out for review, but unfortunately the reviewers did not respond (I have seen the documentation). Second, the behavior of the editor-in-chief was not totally out of line but fully adequate and finds my approval. Third, the correspondence by the editor was certainly not extremely rude and condescending but rather polite and appropriate (but you should see the authors letters!). Fourth, it is true that the editor is not an active scientist anymore but works as a full time editor with the publisher. We use this model with great success for all our journals, including Angewandte Chemie. I strongly reject the imputations that such editors lack the scientific integrity needed for this responsible job and that they are likely to be manipulated. This is outrageous! By the way, all editors-in-chief of our journals, including of course ChemPhysChems, have to approved by the owner societies and need a proven record of a successful scientific career. > > Let me re-iterate, the co-owners of ChemPhysChem are respected chemical societies. Our aim is to produce high-quality journals with which we serve the chemical community and fulfill our statutory task of dissemination of research findings. The accusations brought up by Demetra Dimetrodon are simply pointless and inappropriate. > > To conclude, there was definitely nothing sinister behind the decision to reject the ms. While I understand the frustration of an author whose paper gets rejected, this must not lead to personal and fully unjustified accusations which, to make it even worse, are made public to a greater audience. Such a behavior poisons the relationship between the various players in the publication process and should not be tolerated by our scientific community. > > Best regards > > Wolfram > > Prof. Dr. Wolfram Koch > Geschftsfhrer / Executive Director > Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker / German Chemical Society > Varrentrappstr. 40-42 > 60486 Frankfurt am Main > Tel.: +49 (0)69 7917 320 > Fax : +49 (0)69 7917 1320 > w.koch _ gdch.de > www.gdch.de (English: www.gdch.de/home.html) > > From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 15:19:00 2014 From: "Felipe Pineda pideca-$-hotmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50035-140505135503-5738-9lYtrBRsHL9gPXz2mI9QYw-*-server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Felipe Pineda Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_d23660da-2fbd-4fbd-ac1f-accbe2694c34_" Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 19:54:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Felipe Pineda [pideca~~hotmail.com] --_d23660da-2fbd-4fbd-ac1f-accbe2694c34_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A= =0A= =0A= Just my 5 cents: anonymous peer-reviewing promotes insider favoritism=2C wh= ich in other fields of activity would be considered corruption. Some big n= ames have no trouble at all to get published even in very renowned journals= =2C whatever they write. It was always like that. It's like in socialism: i= t worked only if you had good associates=2C a network. Otherwise - bad luck= ! What for businessmen is money is fame or reputation for scientists. That'= s why there is so much fight around. Some people even do care very much abo= ut impact factors (s. http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2013/= 09/live-chat-should-we-ditch-journal-impact-factor for a clarification).=20 > From: owner-chemistry- -ccl.net > To: pideca- -hotmail.com > Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning > Date: Sat=2C 3 May 2014 03:13:01 -0400 >=20 >=20 > Sent to CCL by: "Demetra Dimetrodon" [dpfiz!=3D!hotmail.com] > Beware of submitting articles to the journal: ChemPhysChem. It seems at f= irst=20 > sight like a legitimate journal but what happened to me recently is compl= etely=20 > unprofessional. >=20 > The editor=2C Greta Heydenrych=2C who appears to have no other occupation= =2C=20 > unlike at other high-profile journals=2C held on to my article for TWO MO= NTHS=20 > only to send it back with a message saying that nobody was willing to rev= iew it!=20 > All that time I thought that it was under review and I was about to inqui= re=20 > about why the process is taking so long when I received her vile and=20 > condescending message. >=20 > The behaviour of the editor of ChemPhysChem is totally out of line. Her=20 > communication with me was extremely rude and condescending.=20 >=20 > The position of editor should in my opinion be occupied by an established= =2C=20 > active researcher (usually a faculty member for a journal of this profile= level)=20 > since usually these people have some basic level of scientific integrity.= They=20 > certainly would not cause a huge delay in the dissemination of your resea= rch. >=20 > I did not even receive any reply after I sent a complaint to members of t= he=20 > Editorial Board of ChemPhysChem either=2C which implies that this journal= =20 > condones this unprofessional behaviour. Not that it matters=2C but the ne= xt=20 > journal I submitted it to=2C of a similar calibre=2C accepted my work vir= tually without=20 > any further demands. >=20 > Just be warned that sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result= =20 > in a huge delay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my case = two=20 > months. Then again=2C the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be=20 > active in research at all=2C something which is completely unheard of for= a high- > profile journal. >=20 > ---------- > Demetra Dimetrodon >=20 >=20 >=20 > -=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script = =3D- > To recover the email address of the author of the message=2C please chang= e>=20>=20>=20 > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:=20>=20 > Before posting=2C check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net >=20 > Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs=20>=20>=20 > If your mail bounces from CCL with 5.7.1 error=2C check:>=20>=20 >=20 =0A= = --_d23660da-2fbd-4fbd-ac1f-accbe2694c34_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A= =0A= =0A=
Just my 5 cents: anonymous peer-reviewing promotes insider fav= oritism=2C which in other fields of activity would be considered corruption= . Some big =3B names have no trouble at all to get published even in ve= ry renowned journals=2C whatever they write. It was always like that. It's = like in socialism: it worked only if you had good associates=2C a network. = Otherwise - bad luck! What for businessmen is money is fame or reputation f= or scientists. That's why there is so much fight around. Some people even d= o care very much about impact factor= s (s. http://new= s.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2013/09/live-chat-should-we-ditch-jou= rnal-impact-factor for a clarifi= cation).

>=3B From: owner-chemistry- -ccl.net
>=3B= To: pideca- -hotmail.com
>=3B Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning
&g= t=3B Date: Sat=2C 3 May 2014 03:13:01 -0400
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B= Sent to CCL by: "Demetra Dimetrodon" [dpfiz!=3D!hotmail.com]
>=3B Be= ware of submitting articles to the journal: ChemPhysChem. It seems at first=
>=3B sight like a legitimate journal but what happened to me recentl= y is completely
>=3B unprofessional.
>=3B
>=3B The editor= =2C Greta Heydenrych=2C who appears to have no other occupation=2C
>= =3B unlike at other high-profile journals=2C held on to my article for TWO = MONTHS
>=3B only to send it back with a message saying that nobody wa= s willing to review it!
>=3B All that time I thought that it was unde= r review and I was about to inquire
>=3B about why the process is tak= ing so long when I received her vile and
>=3B condescending message.<= br>>=3B
>=3B The behaviour of the editor of ChemPhysChem is totally= out of line. Her
>=3B communication with me was extremely rude and c= ondescending.
>=3B
>=3B The position of editor should in my opi= nion be occupied by an established=2C
>=3B active researcher (usually= a faculty member for a journal of this profile level)
>=3B since usu= ally these people have some basic level of scientific integrity. They
&= gt=3B certainly would not cause a huge delay in the dissemination of your r= esearch.
>=3B
>=3B I did not even receive any reply after I sent= a complaint to members of the
>=3B Editorial Board of ChemPhysChem e= ither=2C which implies that this journal
>=3B condones this unprofess= ional behaviour. Not that it matters=2C but the next
>=3B journal I s= ubmitted it to=2C of a similar calibre=2C accepted my work virtually withou= t
>=3B any further demands.
>=3B
>=3B Just be warned that = sending your manuscript to ChemPhysChem could result
>=3B in a huge d= elay in dissemination of your scientific results - in my case two
>= =3B months. Then again=2C the editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be =
>=3B active in research at all=2C something which is completely unhea= rd of for a high-
>=3B profile journal.
>=3B
>=3B ---------= -
>=3B Demetra Dimetrodon
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B -= =3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-<= br>>=3B To recover the email address of the author of the message=2C plea= se change
>=3B the strange characters on the top line to the - - sign. Y= ou can also
>=3B=
>=3B
>=3B
&= gt=3B
>=3B
&= gt=3B
>=3B =
>=3B
>=3B =
>=3B http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_un= sub.shtml
>=3B
>=3B Before posting=2C check wait time at: http:/= /www.ccl.net
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B C= onferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/
&= gt=3B
>=3B Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/in= dex.shtml
>=3B
>=3B If your mail bounces from CCL with 5.7.1 err= or=2C check:
>=3B
>=3B
= >=3B
>=3B =
>=3B
=0A=
= --_d23660da-2fbd-4fbd-ac1f-accbe2694c34_-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 17:07:00 2014 From: "Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch/./gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50036-140505144701-3111-kt2YMBDyE0MtFOL8fZ67Ng##server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Sebastian Kozuch Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090602010607000004090204" Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 13:46:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Sebastian Kozuch [seb.kozuch() gmail.com] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090602010607000004090204 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In spite of the fact that I enjoy these "soap opera" debates, since this topic is out of the CCL objective I didn't want to comment. However, I succumbed to the temptation. I wanted to say that Igor is completely right. Yes, a lot of times it is possible to recognize the reviewers, and in a double blind system it will be easy to recognize the "principal investigator" (especially when sentences like "in our previous work..." appear in the manuscript). However, that works only for established, well known researchers (even in narrow fields such as in computational chemistry). And since journal editors are (usually) those established researchers, then it is clear why they find the double blind system "laughable". But for rookies (like me), that is not really funny. Here are my reasons on why I like the double blind system: 1) I don't want to be frightened by big names. If I have to review a paper of a Nobel laureate, I will be completely inhibited to make corrections just by reading his/her name. That's not fair. 2) If the paper comes from some unpronounceable unknown authors from a third word country, I don't want my prejudice to affect my judgement (and let's not deceive ourselves, we do prejudge). That's even more unfair than point 1. For the same reason, I don't want to know the institutions or the countries from where the paper was submitted. 3) If I am the author of a paper I want the same chance of that paper to be published in a high level journal no matter if I am accompanied or not by a top ranking researcher. We only care about the scientific merits of the paper and not about the authors, right? 4) Even if we can easily recognize the authors, the principle still stands. We won't be completely sure of the full list of authors. Plus, there is the philosophical science stand that we should only care about facts and not about authorities. Yes, it may be sometimes "laughable", but even in those cases it is formally right. Let's not fall into the ugly Matthew effect: "For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them." (Matthew 25:29) Best, Sebastian On 5/5/2014 10:11 AM, Igor Filippov igor.v.filippov|,|gmail.com wrote: > >Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt : cosmologic.de ] > >Trying to anonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in > >the field many reviewers will immediately know who wrote the submitted > >manuscript. This leads nowhere. > > This seems to pre-suppose that all interesting research is done only > by well-established scientists. > I guess work done by a (relatively) younger and not well known person > will just fly under the radar. > I've certainly seen very interesting work submitted by people whose > names did not ring any bells for me, > and I would certainly hope that if I publish something outside of my > usual field it will be > reviewed based on its merits and not based on the fact whether or not > it has a well-known professor > in the author list. > > > Best regards, > Igor --------------090602010607000004090204 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In spite of the fact that I enjoy these "soap opera" debates, since this topic is out of the CCL objective I didn't want to comment.
However, I succumbed to the temptation.
I wanted to say that Igor is completely right. Yes, a lot of times it is possible to recognize the reviewers, and in a double blind system it will be easy to recognize the "principal investigator" (especially when sentences like "in our previous work..." appear in the manuscript). However, that works only for established, well known researchers (even in narrow fields such as in computational chemistry). And since journal editors are (usually) those established researchers, then it is clear why they find the double blind system "laughable". But for rookies (like me), that is not really funny.
Here are my reasons on why I like the double blind system:

1) I don't want to be frightened by big names. If I have to review a paper of a Nobel laureate, I will be completely inhibited to make corrections just by reading his/her name. That's not fair.
2) If the paper comes from some unpronounceable unknown authors from a third word country, I don't want my prejudice to affect my judgement (and let's not deceive ourselves, we do prejudge). That's even more unfair than point 1. For the same reason, I don't want to know the institutions or the countries from where the paper was submitted.
3) If I am the author of a paper I want the same chance of that paper to be published in a high level journal no matter if I am accompanied or not by a top ranking researcher. We only care about the scientific merits of the paper and not about the authors, right?
4) Even if we can easily recognize the authors, the principle still stands. We won't be completely sure of the full list of authors. Plus, there is the philosophical science stand that we should only care about facts and not about authorities. Yes, it may be sometimes "laughable", but even in those cases it is formally right.

Let's not fall into the ugly Matthew effect:
"For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them." (Matthew 25:29)

Best,
Sebastian



On 5/5/2014 10:11 AM, Igor Filippov igor.v.filippov|,|gmail.com wrote:
>Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt : cosmologic.de]
>Trying to anonymize the submitted articles is hopeless: Being experts in
>the field many reviewers will immediately know who wrote the submitted
>manuscript. This leads nowhere.

This seems to pre-suppose that all interesting research is done only by well-established scientists.
I guess work done by a (relatively) younger and not well known person will just fly under the radar.
I've certainly seen very interesting work submitted by people whose names did not ring any bells for me,
and I would certainly hope that if I publish something  outside of my usual field it will be
reviewed based on its merits and not based on the fact whether or not it has  a well-known professor
in the author list.


Best regards,
Igor

--------------090602010607000004090204-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 17:43:00 2014 From: "Mezei, Mihaly mihaly.mezei^^^mssm.edu" To: CCL Subject: CCL: ChemPhysChem: warning Message-Id: <-50037-140505170247-2375-nc+F6JSxqm54tP2/2VMurg(_)server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Mezei, Mihaly" Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_23B1335F43764D4EBFA3AC5C9FB1D10BAA742815Exch2KXMbxEb4Ex_" Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 21:02:38 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Mezei, Mihaly" [mihaly.mezei*mssm.edu] --_000_23B1335F43764D4EBFA3AC5C9FB1D10BAA742815Exch2KXMbxEb4Ex_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Just my 5 cents: anonymous peer-reviewing promotes insider favoritism, wh= ich in other fields of activity would be considered corruption. Some big n= ames have no trouble at all to get published even in very renowned journals= , whatever they write. Don't you realize that if I have to sign my review to a paper by a 'big nam= e' I will be LESS likely to criticize it? Furthermore, it is the EDITOR who= decides and not the reviewer and the editor is NOT anonymous. Mihaly Mezei Department of Structural and Chemical Biology, Icahn School of Medicine at = Mount Sinai Voice: (212) 659-5475 Fax: (212) 849-2456 WWW (MSSM home): http://www.mountsinai.org/Find%20A%20Faculty/profile.do?id= =3D0000072500001497192632 WWW (Lab home - software, publications): http://inka.mssm.edu/~mezei WWW (Department): http://www.mssm.edu/departments-and-institutes/structural= -and-chemical-biology --_000_23B1335F43764D4EBFA3AC5C9FB1D10BAA742815Exch2KXMbxEb4Ex_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Just my 5 cents: anonymous peer-reviewing promotes inside= r favoritism, which in other fields of activity would be considered corrupt= ion. Some big  names have no trouble at all to get published even in very renowned journals, whatever they write.

Don't you realize that if I have to sign my review to a paper by a 'big nam= e' I will be LESS likely to criticize it? Furthermore, it is the EDITOR who= decides and not the reviewer and the editor is NOT anonymous.
Mihaly Mezei

Department of Structural and Chemical Biology, Ica=
hn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Voice:  (212) 659-5475   Fax: (212)=
 849-2456
WWW (MSSM home): http://www.mountsinai.org/Find%20A%20Faculty/profile.do?id=3D000007=
2500001497192632
WWW (Lab home - software, publications): http://in=
ka.mssm.edu/~mezei
WWW (Department): http://www.mssm.edu/departments=
-and-institutes/structural-and-chemical-biology

--_000_23B1335F43764D4EBFA3AC5C9FB1D10BAA742815Exch2KXMbxEb4Ex_--