Uncle Dale wrote:
And, on how many of those occasions have you pre-published your paper, while
it was still undergoing review?
Is that optional, or is it something the publisher does? It is done through the journal's website, isn't it?
Here's what generally happens --
1. Writer submits paper
2. Paper is reviewed and suggestions made
3. Writer makes final corrections and re-submits final draft
4. Journal pre-publishes paper on-line (or hardcopy abstract)
5. Journal publishes finalized text of paper
Now, there are times that a preliminary draft of a paper is read before
a professional society meeting, or shared with the writer's students
in a seminar class, or perhaps included as a chapter in a thesis, etc.
In those instances, of course, an initial draft (not authorized by the
journal publisher) has already been circulated -- perhaps even
But the direct submission to a journal, of a paper not already thus
circulated among readers, generally becomes the temporary
property of the would-be publishing journal -- that is, the journal
has exclusive publishing rights (either by mutual agreement or
by longstanding professional practice).
Bruce has abrogated that standard process, by pre-publishing his
paper under non-journal auspices, while admitting that he has not
heard back, whether or not the paper will be accepted or rejected.
This is almost never done -- and is one surefire way to subvert
the acceptance process.
It is like sending a love-letter to your girlfriend, and when she has
not responded within a certain time, reproducing that particular
letter on Facebook, without her knowledge or permission.
Even disregarding Bruce's use of Smith material not associated with
the 2008 Stanford paper, he has (purposely?) shot himself in the
foot, by privately pre-publishing a paper still under review.
I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly.