Saturday, September 21, 2013

The nasty revewier strikes again - the third time is not a charm!

We sent a paper to a third journal and appear to have had the same reviewer again!  The review appears below.  Is it the same person?

The manuscript contains a  confusing and irrelevant approach to estimate maximal values that second and third order dipolar polarizabilities  can attain. The authors  also claim that this approach can be exploited to find   nonlinear  materials with optimal values for these coefficients without specifying  structural, chemical or other related  material characteristics: the Holy Grail in the quest of  nonlinear optical materials.

The approach is an extension of previous ones  with vaguely similar ingredients  and claims that  appeared in a series of publications  essentially by the same group and are extensively and exclusively referred  in the ms .  For a change this time the approach is disguised  with  “cartoons”   representing  “quantum graphs” (QG) and “star motifs”  that can be stressed and bent to any purpose with adjustable assumptions and parameters  to meet the authors  wishful  claims. These QG bear little, if any,  relation to chemical  structural  characteristics of the material as the usual quantum chemical  approaches  do and are far more complicated  to  estimate and guide the search for  nonlinear materials .

In a way  their approach is a disguised, unphysical  and complicated  version  of a  qualitative “assessment” of the nonlinear polarizabilities/susceptibilities based on  an expansion of the  induced  el-dipole/polarization in terms of the parameter  (E/Eat) where E is the el-field of the light  and Eat is an average  atomic(roughly the  ionization field) or cohesive el-field   of the atom (molecule)/solid.  This qualitative approach served  to qualitatively justify the use and range of the perturbation approach in powers of E and to also get a rough estimate of the susceptibilities   in the form of ?(n+1) = 1/(Eat)n; although the estimates  were  order of magnitude off  some  trends  were plausibly  accounted.  A short account of this approach is given in any respectable book on nonlinear optics (see  for instance introductory chapter in  Y.R. Shen,  The Principles of Nonlinear Optics, John Wiley). The present authors  in a cavalier manner  make no reference  to this approach  and  proceed  with  their complicated and useless to any purpose approach .

I shall accordingly not comment any longer on the inconsistencies of their  approach and  the  irrelevance of their quantum graphs  for  conceiving  nonlinear  materials  with optimal values for the second and third order coefficients. In fact the whole discussion in the ms proceeds with ill defined  terminology and unsubstantiated  vague statements. I do not recommend acceptance  of the present ms for publication in JOURNAL XXX.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

The survey results are in!

My previous posts have described a reviewer who continues to trash our papers not on the basis of the science, but motivated by a personal vendetta.  These attacks are not limited to just my papers, but also to those of past students; I may get annoyed when this happens to me, but I go ballistic when my former students are treated unfairly.

I have several former students who are now young researchers starting promising careers, some of whom are angling towards faculty positions.  A few negative paper reviews and a declined proposal can be the difference between tenure and unemployment.  If their work is inferior, fine, they don't deserve tenure.  However, if a reviewer harms a career by maliciously rejecting papers and proposals solely due to association, this goes well beyond unethical behavior; it's criminal.  In such cases, the reviewer should be punished to the maximum allowable degree.  Since the editor stands at the divide between the author and reviewer, (s)he should be proactive in taking action to punish misdeeds and prevent further infractions.  As head editor, I would convene an investigation of the editor and reviewer.  If my editorial board determined that malicious intent on the part of the reviewer was highly likely, I would move to reveal his or her identity to the authors.  As the acting editor, I would support this move.

To get your opinion on this matter, I prepared an unscientific survey.  While the results are still trickling in, the responses continue to be similar, as I report below.

Given that it is unusual for a journal to keep secrete the identity of the editor, it is surprising that less than 15% of you thought that the identity of the editor should be revealed.  I expected 100%!  Below are your responses to the question about the head editor's actions against the acting editor.

Since the actions of the reviewer are unethical and I believe criminal, he or she should loose the right to anonymity.  The review process demands that the reviewer act in good faith and make every possible effort to be unbiased.  If a reviewer's actions cross the line into actively campaigning against a group of individuals, his/her identity does not deserve to be kept confidential; not just to punish him/her, but to prevent future attacks from behind the blanket of anonymity.  Without knowing the identity of the reviewer, how can this individual's unethical and vitriolic behavior be prevented from spreading to other journals where we publish and funding agencies?

Why did only 20% of you think that the reviewer's name should be released?  What kind of reasons do the other 80% of you have? Are you concerned that the names of conscientious reviewers might be too easily released by pressure from whining authors?  Do you think that the privilege of anonymity trumps all, including the sabotage of a career?  Do you feel that you might be guilty of similar behavior, but perhaps to a lesser degree?  I would be interested in hearing your arguments pro and con on this topic.

FYI, the survey results with regards to the acting editor are shown below.

Let me know what you think.