A Friendly Suggestion for Will Schryver (Really)
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:30 pm
On another thread Buffalo said:
On another older thread still, Stak suggested that Will simply make PDFs of his drafts and send them out for informal pre-publication review and comment.
I understand that the GAEL / Papyri therad over on the MADBoard (MDD) is great entertainment. But is is now so painful to watch that I feel compelled to make the following simple suggestion.
As was mentioned by Stak, it is perfectly acceptable nowadays to send out PDF drafts of papers for informal review and comment. In fact in some areas of research, such as genomics, pre-publication of results has become commonplace, and works to the benefit of all. Informal and electronic pre-publication review is now perfectly safe and acceptable.
So long as the paper is properly attributed and marked with the authors copyright, there is no danger of losing credit for one's work. The upside is that, more often than not, others interested in the field are willing to help out the authors of such papers by pointing out weaknesses and sometimes even suggesting ways to address them before formal submission.
If Will is serious about his cypher theory and about publishing his findings, he would do well to stop trying to grandstand on the boards, take what he has learned from George Miller and Kevin Graham, and finish his papers as best he can. He can then make a PDF of them and send that PDF to both supporters and critics with a request that they review and comment in confidence.
Since they are academics, I am100% sure that George and Chris would do so in a helpful and thoughtful way and do so in confidence. And I am pretty sure that Kevin and perhaps other qualified critics would pitch in as well. All of the Sturm and Drang could be managed in a quiet and confidential way.
Of course, Will would have to stand ready to address the comments that were made by supporters and critics alike. How he did so would be entirely up to him.
Once revised, the papers could then be formally submitted for publication and, if Will wished, I am sure that it would help to send along the informal review comments along with his explanation as to how they were handled in the revised text.
I understand that this may sound like a radical approach, but Will might just get enough help from other interested in the subject matter that he could come up with a theory that could be considered a contribution to the literature, even if it turned out to be a dead end (which it almost certainly will.)
So, Will, if you are reading over here, which you really should be, please consider this approach. I see it as the only way that you are going to come out of this with the slightest shred of dignity or credibility.
Once again:
1. Announce that you are going to leave the boards and finish up your work with no further public debate.
2. Finish your papers as best you can.
3. Have someone proofread them for you.
4. Make PDF versions of them.
5. Send out letters or e-mails to folks who have expressed interest in your work (and there are many) asking them if they would be willing to review you work informally and in confidence.
6. Send PDF copies of the paper to those who agree.
7. Work with these folks to get something that can perhaps eventually be published.
One thing about real academics is that they are usually very willing to help people who are genuinely interested in what they are interested in.
It might turn out that there really is not enough there to warrant publication. IMHO it would be better to know this and stop wasting your time rather than continue to be dawn and quartered on the boards.
Please think about this. I am pretty sure that any of the folks who are professional academics with interest and expertise in this area would be glad to help you and do so on confidence.
You can trust me that everyone involved in this theatre will be better off if you were to take this well meant suggestion.
Buffalo wrote:I hope I'm wrong, though. He should finish what he's doing and publish it, even if he has to self-publish.
On another older thread still, Stak suggested that Will simply make PDFs of his drafts and send them out for informal pre-publication review and comment.
I understand that the GAEL / Papyri therad over on the MADBoard (MDD) is great entertainment. But is is now so painful to watch that I feel compelled to make the following simple suggestion.
As was mentioned by Stak, it is perfectly acceptable nowadays to send out PDF drafts of papers for informal review and comment. In fact in some areas of research, such as genomics, pre-publication of results has become commonplace, and works to the benefit of all. Informal and electronic pre-publication review is now perfectly safe and acceptable.
So long as the paper is properly attributed and marked with the authors copyright, there is no danger of losing credit for one's work. The upside is that, more often than not, others interested in the field are willing to help out the authors of such papers by pointing out weaknesses and sometimes even suggesting ways to address them before formal submission.
If Will is serious about his cypher theory and about publishing his findings, he would do well to stop trying to grandstand on the boards, take what he has learned from George Miller and Kevin Graham, and finish his papers as best he can. He can then make a PDF of them and send that PDF to both supporters and critics with a request that they review and comment in confidence.
Since they are academics, I am100% sure that George and Chris would do so in a helpful and thoughtful way and do so in confidence. And I am pretty sure that Kevin and perhaps other qualified critics would pitch in as well. All of the Sturm and Drang could be managed in a quiet and confidential way.
Of course, Will would have to stand ready to address the comments that were made by supporters and critics alike. How he did so would be entirely up to him.
Once revised, the papers could then be formally submitted for publication and, if Will wished, I am sure that it would help to send along the informal review comments along with his explanation as to how they were handled in the revised text.
I understand that this may sound like a radical approach, but Will might just get enough help from other interested in the subject matter that he could come up with a theory that could be considered a contribution to the literature, even if it turned out to be a dead end (which it almost certainly will.)
So, Will, if you are reading over here, which you really should be, please consider this approach. I see it as the only way that you are going to come out of this with the slightest shred of dignity or credibility.
Once again:
1. Announce that you are going to leave the boards and finish up your work with no further public debate.
2. Finish your papers as best you can.
3. Have someone proofread them for you.
4. Make PDF versions of them.
5. Send out letters or e-mails to folks who have expressed interest in your work (and there are many) asking them if they would be willing to review you work informally and in confidence.
6. Send PDF copies of the paper to those who agree.
7. Work with these folks to get something that can perhaps eventually be published.
One thing about real academics is that they are usually very willing to help people who are genuinely interested in what they are interested in.
It might turn out that there really is not enough there to warrant publication. IMHO it would be better to know this and stop wasting your time rather than continue to be dawn and quartered on the boards.
Please think about this. I am pretty sure that any of the folks who are professional academics with interest and expertise in this area would be glad to help you and do so on confidence.
You can trust me that everyone involved in this theatre will be better off if you were to take this well meant suggestion.