Spider Star

The human colony on the planet Argo has long explored and exploited the technology left behind by an extinct alien race. But then an archaeology team accidentally activates a terrible weapon...
Read More.
Praise for Star Dragon

"Seldom does a storytelling talent come along as potent and fully mature as Mike Brotherton. His complex characters take you on a voyage that is both fiercely credible and astonishingly imaginative. This is Science Fiction."
-- David Brin

"Star Dragon is terrific fare, offering readers a fusion of hard science and grand adventure."
-- Locus Magazine

"Star Dragon is steeped in cosmology, the physics of interstellar travel, exobiology, artificial intelligence, bioscience. Brotherton, author of many scientific articles in refereed journals, has written a dramatic, provocative, utterly convincing hard science sf novel that includes an ironic twist that fans will love."
-- Booklist starred review

"Readers hungry for the thought-provoking extrapolation and rigorous technical detail of old-fashioned hard SF are sure to enjoy astronomer Brotherton's first novel."
-- Publishers Weekly

"Mike Brotherton, himself a trained astrophysicist, combines the technical acuity and ingenuity of Robert Forward with the ironic, postmodern stance and style of M. John Harrison. In this, his debut novel, those twin talents unite to produce a work that is involving on any number of levels. It's just about all you could ask for in a hardcore SF adventure."
-- Paul di Fillippo, SCI-FI.COM
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Meta

Who Has BALs?

April 28th, 2008

CNN Science Blogs has an article today about XMM-Newton observations of some unusual broad absorption line (BAL) quasars. These objects are typically heavily absorbed at X-ray energies, but not in these polar outflows, which are unusual among BAL quasars.

Let me vent some frustration.

Maybe the referee of our current paper will see this, maybe not. I don’t care.

My post-doc Bob and I submitted a paper on the best X-ray observations of one of these polar outflows in a quasar late last summer. The referee has jerked us around on two reports, both unprofessionally late, and both unprofessional in various aspects.

I’ve written before about refereeing in peer-reviewed journals. From an editor’s point of view, if the process improves the published paper, it’s a gain. From an author’s point of view, if the process corrects mistakes without taking too much extra time, it’s worthwhile. There’s a happy medium there. It is not always achieved, either way.

So how can a referee be unprofessional? Let me count the ways. I’m speaking as an author now. First, they can critique the paper on what is not submitted. For instance, if a paper is submitted on Chandra observations, they can make their first comment on compromised XMM-Newton data that they assume is fine, but isn’t. Unprofessional. Then they can suggest that the best citations haven’t been made on some issues, but not tell the authors what they think the best ones are. That’s asking for mind-reading, and is totally unfair and unprofessional. Then they can make gross mistakes, like confusing an empirical result for the test of a model, or just plain making a mistake in a standard calculation. Then they can be dogmatic, confusing the idiocy of sticking with an observational definition with moving the field forward with improved physical understanding.

If you’re getting the impression I’m ticked, you’re right. The referee we got isn’t competent. We’re going to revise the paper and improve it, but we’re going to take a very long time doing it and spend a lot of time responding to ridiculous criticisms from someone who doesn’t understand this topic as well as they should.

But I don’t blame them.

I blame the editor who chose this referee. And I’ll give him a brief, professional opinion about this business when we’re finished with it. I don’t want to bias anyone against my post-doc, who doesn’t have the BALs I have, and just wants to get the paper in publication without having to deal with anyone lashing back because their competency has been challenged. As the professor, that’s my dual job: to keep them out of trouble, but not to put up with shit. We generally only have a single referee for astronomy papers, and that very small number statistics can cause problems. It isn’t always anyone’s fault either. The editor thinks they’ve selected a good person, and the referee is doing the best they can. But sometimes one or both is grossly wrong, and they need feedback at some point. I’m not always right, but I am here, after way too many months of reflection.

This is a tough business, science. It’s slow, sometimes. You sometimes have to spend a lot of time explaining to barely qualified people why they’re wrong, or misguided. Sub-fields are very specialized. Philosophies differ.

And when you’re right, you have to have the BALs to ram it home.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.