A few years ago, I knew a New Yorker, now deceased, who frequently asked me to send my findings out for “peer review.” What he meant by this is that he wanted me to send my findings to all those people I know who have PhDs so they can validate my work.
(Wasn’t there some minor thing in a chart (one of those long “[ ]” accompanying illustrations) in the NY paper that got missed by everyone until after publication? (I think you caught it “live” during a subsequent Twitter space discussion you had on it.) Does this ring a bell?)
ps: Your work is excellent. We all have those moments that make sense at the time but then surprise us later after the final product has been released. I remember going over a regents math exam in my head afterwards and then recalling to my horror that because I had added 4 + 25 like that (and not with the 4 under the 5 like we usually write it) that I had got 30 instead of 29. My test score therefore was 98 instead of 100.
The peer review process also has its faults. When I was a graduate student I presented a paper at a national conference. Afterwards I submitted the paper for publication. On of the reviewers wrote the same comment on my paper that was asked at the meeting and the paper was not published. The next year the same results were published authored by a well known professor who tweaked by study and for the same results. Later as a faculty member at a university I submitted a paper about a procedure and was told that it had been published before. I found a report similar to mine from 50 years before. So they were correct. Then I published a paper on a new procedure and 5 years later another group published the same “discovery” in the same journal without listing my paper as a reference. The lesson for me was politics is everywhere even in peer review.
Thank you, for all you do.
(Wasn’t there some minor thing in a chart (one of those long “[ ]” accompanying illustrations) in the NY paper that got missed by everyone until after publication? (I think you caught it “live” during a subsequent Twitter space discussion you had on it.) Does this ring a bell?)
ps: Your work is excellent. We all have those moments that make sense at the time but then surprise us later after the final product has been released. I remember going over a regents math exam in my head afterwards and then recalling to my horror that because I had added 4 + 25 like that (and not with the 4 under the 5 like we usually write it) that I had got 30 instead of 29. My test score therefore was 98 instead of 100.
But I still remember it some 40+ years later.
Sounds grueling; however excellent to have caught it before sending.
Thanks for the cautionary advise to all of us who think we are seeing gremlins around every corner...
Great example of the importance of integrity over pride!
These days I always ask Grok to check my code just by telling it my intent and showing it my code. It is amazing.
The peer review process also has its faults. When I was a graduate student I presented a paper at a national conference. Afterwards I submitted the paper for publication. On of the reviewers wrote the same comment on my paper that was asked at the meeting and the paper was not published. The next year the same results were published authored by a well known professor who tweaked by study and for the same results. Later as a faculty member at a university I submitted a paper about a procedure and was told that it had been published before. I found a report similar to mine from 50 years before. So they were correct. Then I published a paper on a new procedure and 5 years later another group published the same “discovery” in the same journal without listing my paper as a reference. The lesson for me was politics is everywhere even in peer review.