11 November 2014
My short article was rejected by one journal yester-day, and submitted to another in the wee hours of this morning.
At the journal that rejected it, the article was approved by one of the two reviewers, but felt to be unsuited to the readership of the journal by the other reviewer and by the associate editor. Additionally, the second reviewer and the associate editor suggested that it be made a more widely ranging discussion of the history of subjectivist thought, which suggestion shows some lack of appreciation that foundational issues are of more than historical interest, and that the axiomata invoked by the subjectivists are typically also invoked by logicists. (I say
appreciation rather than
understanding, because the reviewer briefly noted that perhaps my concern was with the logic as such.)
I made three tweaks to the article. One was to make the point that axiomata such as de Finetti’s are still the subject of active discussion. Another was to deal with the fact that secondary criticism arose from the editor’s and the objecting reviewer’s not knowing what
weak would mean in reference to an ordering relation. The third was simply to move a parenthetical remark to its own (still parenthetical) paragraph.
The journal that now has it tries to provide its first review within three months.
20 October 2014
I have made available a PDF file assembling scans of Little Blue Book 1564, Homosexuality in the Lives of the Great, by J[ames] V[incent] Nash. The file size is 51,140,131 bytes.
This Little Blue Book seems to be one of the more difficult to acquire. I don’t know if that’s because the existing stock is peculiarly small or because those who have copies are especially reluctant to part with them. Meanwhile, though my investigation concluded that the work has slipt into the public domain, I have not found the contents reproduced elsewhere.
Though the scans are imperfect, I believe that the whole body of the text is easily read. As to that imperfection, I was reluctant to increase wear-and-tear on my copy, and I did not want to commit a great many hours to the project.
There are passages in this booklet that will make many modern readers wince, but it represented a relatively enlightened view for the time in which it was first published (c. 1928).
26 September 2014
The Eight Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
(Underscore mine.) The constitution of the state of California has a much more complex discussion of bail; but its Article 1, §17 declares
Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.
(Underscore mine.) Plainly these words are an adaptation from the US Constitution.
The replacement of
or was apparently to indicate that cruel punishment were not to be deemed acceptable simply by virtue of being usual. Indeed, Article 1, §17 of the constitution of the state of Florida used to declare
Excessive fines, cruel or unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden.
(underscore mine) and the state supreme court made just that interpretation in cases of the death penalty. (The section has since been radically revised.)
However, a hypothetical problem arises from the replacement. Just as cruel punishment is not acceptable regardless of whether it is unusual, unusual punishment is not acceptable regardless of whether it is cruel. And if most or all prevailing punishments were cruel, then any other sort of punishment were unusual; and unusual punishment has been forbidden. Thus, under such circumstance, all punishment were forbidden!
This problem may not be merely hypothetical, in the context of problems such as prison over-crowding. (Of course, when push comes to shove, lawyers and judges tend to shove logic out the door.)
29 August 2014
The Administration has timed its decision on what sort of immigration reform to implement by Executive Decree so that the President can be informed by whatever occurs on 11 September. Any considered reforms that would, in light of 11 September, seem foolish to the voting public will be shelved. If nothing happens domestically, then the President will feel that he has a freer hand.
29 August 2014
As expected, my brief paper was quickly rejected by the third journal to which I sent it. The rejection came mid-day on 19 July; the editor said that it didn’t fit the general readership of the journal. He suggested sending it to a journal focussed on Bayesian theory, or to a specific journal of the very same association as that of the journal that he edits. I decided to try the latter.
On the one hand, I don’t see my paper as of interest only to those whom I would call
Bayesian. The principle in question concerns qualitative probability, whether in the development of a subjectivist theory or of a logicist theory, and issues of Bayes' Theorem only arise if one proceeds to develop a quantitative theory. On the other hand, submitting to that other journal of the same association was something that I could do relatively quickly.
I postponed an up-date here because I thought that I’d report both rejections together if indeed another came quickly. But, so far, my paper remains officially under review at that fourth journal.
The paper is so brief — and really so simple — that someone with an expertise in its area could decide upon it minutes. But reviewing it isn’t just a matter of cleverness; one must be familiar with the literature to feel assured that its point is novel. A reviewer without that familiarity would surely want to check the papers in the bibliography, and possibly to seek other work.
Additionally, a friend discovered that, if he returned papers as quickly as he could properly review them, then editors began seeking to get him to review many more papers. Quite reasonably, he slowed the pace of at which he returned his reviews.
13 July 2014
The second journal to which I submitted my brief article quickly rejected it (on 11 July) as being unsuited to their readership, and suggested that
it may be that your work would be better directed to a journal specialising on statistical theory, or foundations/philosophy. (The journal to which I submitted arguably is one of statistical theory; but it leans heavily towards review rather than towards innovation.)
As 13 July neared its end, I submitted to yet another journal. This time, I’m pretty sure that I’m playing a long-shot, but a rejection should come very quickly if it comes, the paper would get relative many readers if were published there, and people in and around my field would be impressed; so I think that the gamble is a good one.
9 July 2014
In the wee hours of 8 July, I rewrote my brief article on one of the proposed axiomata of probability, and sent it to a journal of statistical theory.
The principal reason for doing some rewriting was to add a paragraph reporting an interesting point made by one of my former professors. (I wish that I’d seen that point on my own, but I didn’t, so I’ve duly creditted him.) Additionally, I tightened-up the abstract.
In the absence of being given a reason why my note was rejected by the previous journal, my conjecture is that it was considered to present what would be viewed as a technicality from the perspective imputed to the readership. So I’m turning to a journal with a different sort of readership.
6 July 2014
The first journal to which I submitted my brief article on the foundations of probability has rejected it, without providing a reason. This sort of rejection is the most common, and I got one of that sort from the first journal to which I submitted my paper on incomplete preferences.
I will find another journal to which to submit the newer paper, but I have little sense of the the rankings of the sorts of journals in which this paper might be published, and I don’t know at the moment to which journal I will next send it.
30 June 2014
The code for
Favicon madness, an entry at the 'blog of Ronny Endrey-Walder, might seem somewhat familiar. That’s because, up to (but not including) the stuff for the Open Graph protocol beyond the site thumbnail graphic tag, that code is lifted from
Code and How to Use It, the second part of my three-part entry
FavIcons, Apple Touch Icons, Site Thumbnail Images, and WordPress. Mr Endrey-Walder didn’t bother to request permission to display my code, nor did he clearly credit it to me.
When I make code available for use, that doesn’t automatically throw it into the public domain. If someone used this particular code, it wouldn’t be displayed; it would be processed on the server side, and what was presented to a visitor would not be the code; so making it available for use isn’t the same thing as licensing it as content. A sense of ethics ought to have prevented Mr. Endrey-Walder from doing what he did; and certainly he’s violated copyright law. I’ve raised an objection in a comment to his 'blog; so far he’s left that comment hidden in the moderation queue (if indeed he has not deleted it).
As to his support for the Open Graph protocol beyond the site thumbnail image, it’s probably a good idea, but the code supporting use of a site thumbnail image should perhaps then be refactored. Naming the additional function
misses the point that the Open Graph protocol is not peculiar to Facebook. Whoever wrote this code has hard-coded the
, which doesn’t conform to the sort of value that
og:type is intended to have. And hard-coding means that the code itself must be edited whenever the type doesn’t fit; a better idea would be to code with a default type or to have the tag be omitted by default, but to have the code look for a configuration file and, when found, use it to determine