Woo hoo. Fame at last. (Albeit somewhat transient) I've never been published in Nature, but as of just now I *have* had a tweet favourited by a Nature senior editor! Just had to say that...
The topic was peer review, BTW; and a fascinating little story about Einstein.
Formal peer review is considered an essential part of modern science work, with good reason IMO. But it is a fairly recent development, becoming common somewhere around the mid twentieth century. There's always been plenty of peer review once scientific ideas get out and other scientists get to evaluate them. What's a bit more recent is peer review as an initial gateway to be passed before publication.
Anyhoo, in 1936 Einstein submitted a paper to The Physical Review, entitled "Do Gravitational Waves Exist", in which he present a "proof" that gravitational waves do not exist. The editor was concerned about the paper, and sent it out to another expert (Howard P Robertson) for his evaluation. This was not a normal practice; anything from Einstein tended to get published automatically. Indeed, this may have been only occasion Einstein ever had to deal with peer review at a journal!
Tate evidently felt the need of some expert comment. Robertson identified errors in the paper and returned a 10 page comment describing them. Tate then returned the manuscript to Einstein, along with the reviewer comments, and indicated that he would be glad to have Einstein's further comment.
Einstein took umbrage and responded with a letter that is now famous in the annals of peer review:
The irony of this is that the review was correct, and Einstein was wrong. Einstein DID publish elsewhere; indeed he never published with The Physical Review again. However, by the time of the publication he had spoken directly with Professor Robertson and they discussed the issues. Einstein recognized and acknowledged the errors and made extensive corrections; in particular no longer claiming to have disproved gravitational waves.
The eventual publication, ironically, included this acknowledgement as a note to the paper.
There's a lot more on this amusing affair at Einstein Verses the Physical Review (published in Physics Today, Sept 2005, pp 43-48) The note and acknowledgement I quoted from Einstein and Oppenheimer by Silvan S. Schweber (Harvard Uni Press 2009).
The topic was peer review, BTW; and a fascinating little story about Einstein.
Formal peer review is considered an essential part of modern science work, with good reason IMO. But it is a fairly recent development, becoming common somewhere around the mid twentieth century. There's always been plenty of peer review once scientific ideas get out and other scientists get to evaluate them. What's a bit more recent is peer review as an initial gateway to be passed before publication.
Anyhoo, in 1936 Einstein submitted a paper to The Physical Review, entitled "Do Gravitational Waves Exist", in which he present a "proof" that gravitational waves do not exist. The editor was concerned about the paper, and sent it out to another expert (Howard P Robertson) for his evaluation. This was not a normal practice; anything from Einstein tended to get published automatically. Indeed, this may have been only occasion Einstein ever had to deal with peer review at a journal!
Tate evidently felt the need of some expert comment. Robertson identified errors in the paper and returned a 10 page comment describing them. Tate then returned the manuscript to Einstein, along with the reviewer comments, and indicated that he would be glad to have Einstein's further comment.
Einstein took umbrage and responded with a letter that is now famous in the annals of peer review:
The irony of this is that the review was correct, and Einstein was wrong. Einstein DID publish elsewhere; indeed he never published with The Physical Review again. However, by the time of the publication he had spoken directly with Professor Robertson and they discussed the issues. Einstein recognized and acknowledged the errors and made extensive corrections; in particular no longer claiming to have disproved gravitational waves.
The eventual publication, ironically, included this acknowledgement as a note to the paper.
There's a lot more on this amusing affair at Einstein Verses the Physical Review (published in Physics Today, Sept 2005, pp 43-48) The note and acknowledgement I quoted from Einstein and Oppenheimer by Silvan S. Schweber (Harvard Uni Press 2009).
Comment