Re: Breast Cancer, the Secular Trend, Testosterone, and DHEA: Originality
Phillip Bigelow (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:49:44 -0800
James Howard wrote:
> >James Howard wrote:
> >> I have attempted publication in scientific journals; all were rejected.
> Phillip Bigelow <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Do you have any theories as to why your drafts were rejected?
> >This is not an ad hominim attack; rather, it is a very legitimate
> James Howard responds:
> I responded to your earlier posts, because you challenged my veracity. I did
> not want to let my lack of response be interpreted inappropriately. I do
> consider your current post an ad hominem attack.
This comes as somewhat of a surprise to me. After all, at some
point, *all* authors will get manuscripts rejected from time to time.
I myself have had one manuscript rejected, and the reviewers were
very helpful in noting why it was rejected. In the case that
I noted above, it turns out that my paper was not suitable for the
*particular* publication. Also, I was given a list of recommendations
for improvement of my manuscript, all of which were very helpful.
My question to you (above) was to give you the opportunity to explain
any theories you have as to why your work was rejected for publication,
or, for you to tell us what reasons your reviewers gave for rejection.
Please understand that, in no way, does my question reflect negatively
on the purported originality of your ideas, nor does it reflect
negatively on the content of your draft(s).
I don't understand, James, why you believe my question (above) was an
ad hom. attack.