Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] E=mc^2 because E=mc^2?



There are some journals of science education that will not allow any
references to commercially available curriculum materials except in the book
review section. I had a paper rejected because it mentioned available
materials, and they even said "we have advertisers, you know". I wrote back
a letter questioning this policy, and they essentially denied the original
statement that it was to avoid offending advertisers. Of course they do not
explicitly state that this is a policy, because that would put them on
record as a poor journal. How can one discuss advances in teaching without
mentioning existing curricula?

The paper might not have been worthy otherwise, but the reasons they gave
were pretty bad. It is for this reason that Consumer's Union does not
accept advertising. But in scientific and educational circles the closest
thing to this would be the information made available by groups such as the
textbook league, or the Hubisz report on middle school texts. We do not
have an equivalent to Consumer's Union in science or education. Book
reviews are always reviewer's opinions, and never show any data to support
the statements.

Tempers can run high when a book or curriculum is questioned. I was at an
AAPT meeting where the effectiveness of Active Physics was found to be low,
using the FCI. Eisencraft got hot under the collar, and claimed good
results, but to date as far as I know, this has not been published. They do
make claims on the website.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


"Good Reasons", normally means a negative referee's report that
accompanies the rejection, and an invitation to respond to the referee's
report. A bad reason, that I once encounered, is that some advertisers
might take exception to the paper, in the opinion of the editor. The
paper was eventually published, after substantial rewriting that
deleted favorable comments about a textbook.
Regards,
Jack