Reply #47: Okay, lets stay on topic.

[immune]

I have some questions regarding the peer review process Dr. Brazant’s paper went through to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

1. Who all received a copy of this paper for review and when did they receive it?

2. Which members of the peer group read it and returned it approved for publication?

3. Which members of the peer group read it and returned it with criticism or rejected it?

4. How many peers must approve the scientific findings detailed in a paper to be published in JEM? Must they attempt to replicate the findings?

5. How many peers must disapprove of the scientific findings detailed in a paper to reject it?

6. Is the author allowed to revise his paper based on criticisms of the peer group and what is that process, how many times may a paper be resubmitted for subsequent peer review?

7. Where does one find the names of the specific peers who reviewed and approved, or disapproved, the scientific findings contained in Dr. Brazant’s paper? What is the particular discipline that qualifies each of them to judge the findings expressed in this paper?

And finally, why did Dr. Brazant seek to have his paper published in JEM, rather than in one of the journals listed at the link below? Wouldn’t a structural engineering journal be more appropriate in this instance since they deal specifically with the properties and actions of steel and concrete?

http://www.thestructuralengineer.info/?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=29