"Judge" Johnson sez:
Under the circumstances it seems to me that if Dr. Schwartz would be so kind as to upload the disputed papers to his own web site (as-is?) that this would go a long way in resolving the controversy.
To which Jed replies:
That, he will never do.
... In another recent post Michel Jullian suggests:
, and the ball will be in Mitchell's court, he might even decide to provide them in the format you like most if he is not forced to.
To which Jed replies:
The ball is already in his court. He can upload his papers to his own web site anytime he wants, in any format he likes. No one is forcing him to provide anything to me, in any format.
... As the librarian for lenr-canr.org I can appreciate your desire that the website's content maintains a professional appearance and credibility, that all papers are presented in a clear precise and readable format. I can understand Dr. Storms as well as your desire that all papers conform whenever possible to NIST standards – whatever this official "NIST" term really stands for cuz I really don't know! I also have no desire to dispute your claim that "Readers care a lot about format, and even more about presentation quality." I know from personal experience that no one has EVER bought a smudgy fuzzy piece of artwork from me. It is also true that not all brilliant researchers and scientists possess the capacity to format, to present their findings in the most logical visual manner, in a so-called "professional" manner. It's really not anyone's fault as we all possess unique assets as well as deficits when we came into this world. That is what professional EDITORS are for, including scientific editors. Professional editors often perform a thankless job as the requirements force them to "EDIT" [...to occasionally tamper with the most intimate details of another person's precious hard work]. This inevitably leads to potential disagreements as to intent and content of particular phrases and terminology used. If a writer, for whatever reason, does not trust the ability of the editor to "edit" his work faithfully, to accurately maintain the original content of what he/she is trying to say, explain or reveal, the WRITER/EDITOR relationship should be terminated ASAP to save everyone untold reams of grief. The interesting part as I see it in this recent dialogue is a reoccurring statement that Mr. Rothwell would upload Dr. Schwartz's papers "as is, without changing a single comma," –IF- the "...paper [could be supplied to him] in text Acrobat format." Since Dr. Schwartz has to the best of my knowledge not yet clarified his reasons as to why the papers have not been supplied to Mr. Rothwell in a text Acrobat format, I am forced to speculate. Speculating on the motivations of another individual in the third person and with no feed-back is ALWAYS a dubious and dangerous position to get mired in. With that said, I will stick my vulnerable neck out and speculate that Dr. Schwartz simply might not be able to (for undisclosed reasons) fulfill Mr. Rothwell's seemingly simple request. I will not speculate as to what those reasons might be since this is, after all, sheer speculation on my part. The only suggestion I could offer Mr. Rothwell and Dr. Storms, which I want to make it clear neither has asked of me nor from anyone for that matter, might be to place a great big disclaimer next to the links to the disputed papers. Make it clear to anyone who might be considering retrieving the entirety of Dr. Schwarz's disputed papers that what they are about to retrieve might suffer from a collection of formatting issues, that it may be difficult to read portions of the text as well as make sense out of certain charts. Make it clear that lenr-canr.org cannot be held responsible for the readability, the content of the information. It seems to me that Lenr-canr.org would have at that point faithfully fulfilled its obligations and responsibilities to its readership in giving them fair warning. Nevertheless, due to what I assume must be strong interest in Dr. Schwartz's research the web site will cautiously go ahead and make the entire body of work available anyway, as-is – assuming Dr. Schwartz authorizes you to upload the original papers. The short answer: From what I can tell Dr. Schwartz does not appear to want ANYONE messing with his work in any form, shape or manner. He appears to want the entire body of his work presented in exactly the manner that he sent it in, such as to lenr-canr.org. It is up to lenr-canr.org to decide if they can accept those ground rules. In my own experience there appear to be few organizations, and far too few EDITORS who could tolerate such rigid ground rules, where there is no room for give-and-take. In fact, it might be impossible to fulfill, literally. Under the circumstances, and as I perceive it, most editors would simply suggest that the author upload the entirety of their research at their own web site as-is...and good luck. Complaining about the circumstances, accusing others of various forms of professional/ethical misconduct doesn't accomplish much of anything other than making for juicy gossip at the next CF conference dinner outing. As for me, I've certainly enjoyed this little foray into the psychological peccadilloes of others. For a brief spell it made me forget my own irritating collection. ;-) Regards, "Judge" Johnson ...who was never elected, and is operating without a license. www.OrionWorks.com
