A TSZ member recently made this claim: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sanford\u2019s recent paper with Cordova was rejected by multiple venues for bogus reasons. Everyone agreed the science is solid, but made up reasons why the paper should not be accepted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
And then is asked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Name the venues and give their reasons for the rejection.\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
I’ve actually been asking this for literally years over at UD, although not lately. The claim that papers are rejected not because of the science but instead because of some other reason is often made. But I’ve never seen any actual evidence of this. Has anyone? <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
In fact, it’s also the stated reason from some at UD as to why they don’t even attempt to formally publish their work, they know it would simply be rejected for ideological reasons only. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet despite many years of asking I have never once seen any evidence for this claim. So in this thread I’d like to see the paper that was submitted, the journal or other it was submitted to and the rejection itself. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
If nobody can supply any such evidence then this OP can be used in rebuttal in the future when such claims are again made, as we all know they will be. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A TSZ member recently made this claim: Sanford\u2019s recent paper with Cordova was rejected by multiple venues for bogus reasons. Everyone agreed the science is solid, but made up reasons why the paper should not be accepted. And then is … Continue reading