Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
...this is your proposal. You wrote the paper and I am talking to you. It is your duty to gather material that will support your proposal, not mine. I'm happy to wait until you've had a chance to contact him for references to answer questions about the percentages of iron, silicon, and neon - what the evidence is, and how it was determined. I'd also like to see his comments on your model.
|
I think that's a cop out on your part. I have a day job and he's a far better reesource that I am on nuclear chemistry and anyone can see. If you want a real answer ask him. If you are posturing or just trying to make my life difficult, forget it. I've got better things to do. |
This attitude honestly mystifies me. You say you have spent a great deal of time on your proposal. You have been asked, repeatedly, some questions about your proposal, not Dr. Manual's. If you think Dr. Manual can help you and he is willing to work with you, then by all means discuss it with him and bring back the results. You are asking me to do research for you.
If anyone else considers this a "cop out" please speak up. And Michael, the questions are still on the table. |
Van Rijn, I think you're absolutely right. I know this is not a formal peer-review process, but I think the same principle applies: it's the author's responsibility to provide supporting data, not the reviewer's. Manuscripts come back to me all the time with requests for additional references or data. It has never occurred to me to tell the reviewers to go and get them themselves.
I haven't contributed to this thread until now, but I've been following it and have learned a lot while doing so. I'd like to thank everyone who helped with the teaching.