Hello There, Guest!  

[OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing

#11
(2014-Aug-14, 18:13:56)Peter Frost Wrote: Duxide,

"by your suggestion I should publish in a top-tier journal with corrupt and evil review system"

That is exactly my suggestion. Yes, life is unfair, but we only have one life to live, and the most sensible solution is to negotiate with life as best we can.

I believe that your findings deserve much more exposure than they are currently getting. Unfortunately, more exposure will be possible only through publication in a top-tier journal. I believe in OBG, but it will be many years before it gains the status of Nature Genetics or even Evolution and Human Behavior. This is how academia works. If you publish in obscure journals, people will assume your findings are obscure. Again, life is unfair, but one cannot take one's life back to a dealer and ask for a refund. We have to play the cards we're dealt.

You can increase your chances of publication by following a few basic rules:

- Don't wander off topic. The more you wander off topic, the greater the chances of writing something that will piss off one of the reviewers (or the editor). Sexual selection is one such topic. Many reviewers will dismiss any talk of sexual selection as total nonsense -- "Just-so stories." This kind of situation is unavoidable if sexual selection is the main topic of your paper. In your case, it isn't. You're creating needless problems for yourself.

- Don't cite non-experts. Richard Lynn is a fine man, but he is not an expert on technological complexity in hunter-gatherers.

- Anticipate criticisms. You've done this admirably.

Even if you do everything right, your chances of acceptance will never be greater than 50%. This is a difficult topic to write about, and many people will react angrily. But there is no fool-proof way of screening out angry reviewers. You're facing a deep-seated ideological prejudice that cannot be resolved through a different form of peer review.


"You also say "the list of IQ-enhancing alleles should be drawn up by someone else". I already said that there are only 4 IQ enhancing alleles whose effect has been replicated. If someone else drew them up, he'd get the same four."

Fine. I may be worried for no reason. I was just trying to anticipate a possible criticism.


"I never heard of a reviewer that expresses his opinion on a paper submitted to a journal recommending publication on a different journal!!"

I have. As a reviewer, I've often made that kind of comment. Please keep in mind that I'm not talking about the present paper under review. I'm saying that if you can increase the size of your dataset, you should consider publishing a subsequent paper in a top-tier journal. That's not an insult. That's a compliment.


Your suggestions are certainly sensible and I agree that publishing in an obscure journal will make my ideas obscure as well. However as you rightly point out my results are considered "blasfemous" and totally unacceptable to the editors of "respectable" journals. What's the chance they'll ever make it into a top-tier publication? Very low...since these journals do not accept multiple submission and as we all know their review process is slow, it could be years before I see my paper published, since I'd have to submit to many journals before seeing it eventually accepted. Unless I cheated the system (which is something I am not entirely opposed to) by carrying out multiple submission. This would certainly speed up the process with obvious risks in case my efforts were detected (but as you say, we live only once so we may want to take risks).
 Reply
 
Messages In This Thread
[OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Duxide - 2014-Aug-10, 21:53:08
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Peter Frost - 2014-Aug-12, 02:17:54
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Emil - 2014-Aug-12, 05:12:34
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Duxide - 2014-Aug-12, 10:30:07
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Meng Hu - 2014-Aug-12, 04:17:05
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Duxide - 2014-Aug-12, 11:18:26
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Emil - 2014-Aug-12, 11:53:29
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Peter Frost - 2014-Aug-13, 17:56:59
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Duxide - 2014-Aug-13, 18:25:27
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Peter Frost - 2014-Aug-14, 18:13:56
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Duxide - 2014-Aug-14, 18:25:09
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Philbrick Bastinado - 2014-Aug-14, 22:26:22
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Duxide - 2014-Aug-14, 22:54:35
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Philbrick Bastinado - 2014-Aug-15, 01:47:59
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Duxide - 2014-Aug-15, 01:58:31
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Meng Hu - 2014-Aug-18, 04:24:45
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Duxide - 2014-Aug-18, 19:37:01
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Peter Frost - 2014-Aug-18, 19:38:17
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Duxide - 2014-Aug-18, 19:42:19
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Peter Frost - 2014-Aug-21, 18:45:54
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Tetrapteryx - 2014-Oct-18, 10:20:54
RE: [OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing - by Duxide - 2014-Oct-18, 15:12:54
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)