Thank you for sending me your manuscript reporting your "revolutionary" paper
offering your
"own comprehensive, mass-related physical-mathematical Research Study, proposing new scientific data and formulas [sic] with a view to making it possible to unify the four universal interaction fields…, which as a matter of fact cover all possible physical as well as scientific-mathematical aspects and domains of reality itself…"
and incorporating your "FOUR REMARKABLE CONCLUSIVE THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS".
You ask that I (and the others among the "500 SCIENTIFIC ADDRESSEES" to whom you sent the paper) "will kindly agree to publish" your "Research Study in Your worldwide famous scientific Reviews and / or Journals as soon as possible". I assume you have contacted me, inter alia, seeking publication in Chemistry Education Research and Practice?
I must decline your request, on several grounds.
Your paper does not seen to be within the scope of the journal. That may seem odd when you propose a TOE (Theory of Everything). I am certainly open to the argument that in principle all academic fields could be reduced to fundamental physics, but not that this is always sensible. So for example in chemistry we have concepts such as acidity, resonance, hyperconjugation, oxidation, and so forth. These are probably, in principle, capable of being redescribed in terms of fundamental physics – but any such description is likely to be too cumbersome to be of practical value in chemistry. We have these specifically chemical concepts because the complexity of the phenomena leads to emergent properties that are most usefully considered at the level of chemistry, not physics.
How much more so the concepts related to teaching and learning chemistry! Perhaps pedagogy could (again, in principle) be reduced to physics – but that would be little more than an impressive technical achievement of no practical value. Sadly, a theory of everything tells us very little of value about most things.
Secondly, the journal has peer review processes that need to be followed, and editorial fiat is not used to publish a paper without following these processes. You may well have made major breakthroughs in this fundamental area of science, but science is communal, and your work has no status in the field until other experts have critiqued and evaluated it.
So, thirdly, any submission needs to be made through the journal's on-line review system, allowing proper editorial screening and then – should it be considered suitable (which it would not in this case, see above) allowing it to be sent to review.
However, submitting a manuscript for formal review requires you to make a number of declarations. One of these is that the manuscript you wish to be considered is not published, under review or consideration, or has been submitted to, any other journal. As you have adopted a 'scatter gun' approach to submitting your work, you would need to wait until you have received formal notification that the other 499 scholarly outlets approached are declining your manuscript before you could make a formal submission.
As you are concerned that unless your work is published it may be plagiarised, I suggest you deposit your paper in one of the many repositories now available for posting unpublished documents. This will make your work available and will demonstrate your priority in anything that may later be judged (in peer review) by experts in the field as novelty in your work.
First published 12th March 2017 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
I've always admired those people who seem to be able to turn their hand to a wide range of activities and master them at will: people like Jonathan Miller. Most of us, however, are best advised to find something we are reasonably good at, and that we have a strong interest in, and then to work hard to develop some worthy level of expertise. I always thought that it was realistic to settle for that, but I am increasingly finding that in this post-truth world (where if we say something with conviction often enough it can be treated as reality) I have aimed too low.
The idea that the scholarly world adheres to values of honesty, integrity, balance and so forth seems pretty passé. Rather those arranging conferences, founding journals or setting up book proposals, seem to feel that hyperbole, exaggeration, guesswork, flattery, and other cheap marketing tactics are fair game as they fish (or should that be phish) for contributors.
At least that is the only explanation I've come up with for my apparent reputation as a polymath…
Keith Taber: Eminent biologist
In a previous blog posting I reported how I was surprised to be invited as an eminent Plenary Speaker at an International Conference on Synthetic Biology. I am clearly not qualified to be considered an expert in synthetic biology, so considered this invitation had to be a scam. My reply to the conference organisers (and some of the eminent scientists on the scientific committee) asking why they thought I was suitable to be a plenary speaker on synthetic biology did not get a response.
However, I have just been having one of my periodic attempts to sort my email in-box and could not help but notice that my reputation for expertise is not restricted to science education (which I would claim) and synthetic biology (which I struggle to find a justification for), but rather that I seem to be a recognised authority across a range of scientific fields.
My immense contributions to physics
So I can add areas of chemistry and physics to biology. To be fair I am a chartered chemist and chartered physicist, but had always seen my expertise within these disciplines as limited to chemistry education and physics education. It seems I am selling myself short. Rather, it would appear that I have made "immense contribution to the field" of atomic and nuclear physics. I am not sure what these contributions are, but presumably the organisers of the "International Conference on Atomic and Nuclear Physics" must have something specific in mind?
My eminent contributions to chemistry
I feel I have made some modest contributions to chemistry (and am very proud that this was recognised through the RSC Education Award) – but would certainly not claim anything that goes beyond my educational work. A mild fantasy that the degassing that occurs when dissolving salt displaces dissolved air from water might become know as the Taber effect has yet to come to fruition. Yet apparently I have made "eminent contribution in [the] field" of computational chemistry. Perhaps my undergraduate project on computerised orbital calculations for TTF-TCNQ was not as flawed as I had suspected at the time. Certainly the editors of the Frontiers in Computational Chemistry book series were interested in calling upon my expertise.
Keith Taber: An expert in computer science
Indeed it appears that my work in computing is more widely recognised. I was invited to join the committee for a conference where the organisers were "very interested in the contributions you have made in Computer Science", considering me "an expert". Amazing considering that I am so 'fingers and thumbs' that I often have to have several attempts at the passwords to get into my personal computers.
Keith Taber: Eminent researcher with excellent contributions to medical sciences
Moreover it seems my strengths are not limited to the so-called pure sciences. Additionally I am told that I have made such "excellent contributions to the field of medical sciences" that "the scientific committee of the conference [on HIV & AIDS] is aware of your published works in this field". I'm struggling to identify which publications they are referring to, but then my memory is not so good.
Indeed it seems that I am considered such an "eminent researcher" in Otolaryngology that I have been invited to join the editorial board of a new international journal in the specialism. That, on getting this invitation, I felt the need to check exactly what Otolaryngology is, merely reinforces just how unreliable my memory has become. Indeed, I'm wondering if there are any other areas of expertise I have developed a reputation for, that my modesty has allowed me to forget.
Addendum: it seems I am considered, at least by by a specialist journal inviting my "prominent contribution", to also be "eminent" in the area of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
First published 3rd December 2016 at at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
It seems from an invitation to join the editorial board of another new journal that I am also known as an expert in psychotherapy where I "have made significant contributions, worth mentioning" with "achievements in various stages" indeed. It seems such expertise is very time-sensitive as the invitation "is valid only for one week and expires if no communication is received from" me.
Further addendum: more than a month after that time-sensitive request, I had another invitation to join the editorial board of this 'International Journal' of psychotherapy as my "knowledge of the subject and the contributions to field are noteworthy". I feel a bit bad about not accepting joining the journal as they think my "expertise will surely take it to great heights".
My prominence in immunodiagnostics
I was honoured to be "cordially invite[d] … to be … an Editorial Board Member for the Journal of Immunodiagnostics" considering that the journal manager, Maria Carla was able to "assure [me] of international quality and standards of our articles published in our journals, using state-of-the-art prominent reviewers and editorial board". Good to be considered prominent and state of the art.
My remarkable achievements in human resources
I have been invited to join the Editorial Board of Modern Management Forum, a new journal from Universe Scientific Publishing. This invitation has been made "In light of [my] remarkable achievements in Human Resources", which apparently were discernible when reading my review published in Science & Education of a science education handbook.
Is there no end to my (supposed) achievements?
Well, the praise keeps rolling in, as I get asked to write, chair, edit, talk, etcetera in a vast range of fields where, despite claims to the contrary, I clearly have no experise, or where someone (or some machine) imagines that my writngs about science education demonstrate eminence in unrelated areas…
Fingerprint image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay
Dear ***** ****
Thank you for your message, asking me download a paper using the University of Cambridge library subscription, and then send you a copy of the pdf. I am sure you are aware that if I did this I would be breaching the terms of my use of the library subscription. It is unfortunate that your institution does not have a subscription to this journal (and quite incredible if as you suggest "only a person from Cambridge university can access this article….A person from any other institution cannot access this article" – I guess the journal cannot be of very high quality if no other institutions in the world subscribe to it).
As you are an academic (moreover, apparently a well renowned researcher in your field who has been awarded many distinctions nationally and internationally) you must be aware what you are asking is improper. The article is copyright material and the publisher is entitled to charge a fee for access. You are asking me (and many colleagues here) to be complicit in an act of theft. It is poor academic practice for you to make this request. I realise it must be very frustrating for you to not have ready access to an article you wish to read for your work – however, rather than composing emails to people you do not know, and asking them to undertake an underhand and improper act (which could in principle lead to them being disciplined for breaching the legal contract between library user, library and publisher), perhaps you could find a legal way to access the article:
perhaps your library could arrange an inter-library loan;
if the authors are still alive, perhaps they would send you a preprint;
if all else fails, perhaps you could raise the thirty US dollars to enable you to buy a copy of this 'really crucial' article from the publisher.
If this work is so essential for your research, you might consider if it is worth buying rather than asking someone to steal it for you.
I am sorry not to be more helpful, as I am aware many academics see copyright and licensing infringement as very minor matters, but I actually think both that legal agreements should be respected (certainly unless they represent clear violations of higher rights) and that academics, as professional authors themselves, should take intellectual property rights seriously.
Best wishes
Keith
(First published 20th January 2016 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/)
