ABP News Channel — Evidence of extreme injustice & professional misconduct to a dedicated indian researcher by scientific societies o[censored].S.

Dear Sir,

With due respect, I am to state that I am a doctoral researcher, now in my 20's, currently working under dept. of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India. Recently I communicated with one of my papers written on computational science with SIAM Journal of Scientific Computing (one of the "leading" scientific societies o[censored]S in the field of applied mathematics and computational science). I would like to draw your attention to a surprising letter as I was forwarded by SIAM journal editorial afterwards... In the attached image, one may clearly find that an article of the author is being rejected by the Associate Editor (Prof. Dr. Scott MacLachlan, Memorial University of Newfoundland) on the basis of only one referee’s comment (It's well known in Scientific Community that an editorial decision on a manuscript is made only after thorough review with at least two reviewers and never nowhere this rule is violated) and the place, where one should find comments of the referee 2 is completely blank!! (The number "#1" as is seen beside the "Referee" clearly proves that there were actually comments of referee #2 but were intentionally removed from display for some unknown reason and can never be sensibly cross-argued about the non-existence/availability of the second referee as is now the journal editorial is doing to hide up their misdeed)... Now the questions which arise are, Doesn't it appear an extreme injustice, unfair practice and professional misconduct by the Authority of the journal? Is this the policy of a “prestigious” society like SIAM to prohibit the publication of high potential works performed by the Eastern world? And most notably, such incidents are being observed to frequently happen with Indian researchers (especially those who come with very novel ideas as of course rarely happens) by other similar US scientific societies as well, and this particular incident serves only as an example. If, in this way, US societies like SIAM intentionally reject quality-researches of Eastern Countries like India, will it lead to a good consequence over further progress of Science and Technology?

The author communicated with SIAM Journal of Scientific Computing with his recent research on a completely new aspect of assessment of iterative reconstruction algorithms which, as is well known, find their widespread use from medical imaging modalities like Magnetic Resonance Imaging, tomography to many other fields of digital signal and image processing... The author proposed, for the first time, the necessity of the existence of "informative efficiency" of such an algorithm which will be able to measure how much an algorithm is "informatically" favourable to employ them in practical purposes...The author also argued why such important research should have a significant impact in the whole community of digital signal and image processing, medical imaging like MRI, tomography etc...Where editors like Prof. Dr. Maclachlan admitted about the novelty and the strength of argument presented in the paper, he rejected it based on some comments of "one" reviewer who made some adverse nonsensical comments on it without going through the majority of the work (I proved it), although with the admittance of the interesting aspects of it... I appealed to Dr. Maclachlan for its re-consideration on the ground that most of the comments of the concerned reviewer are not true/justifiable (I showed the reasoning) on which the decision of rejection was made. Some small issues like haziness of a figure etc. could be easily surmountable. But unfortunately, Dr. Maclachlan never seemed to consider any reasoning I showed him with respect, but informed me that whatever be the case, he will stand by his decision of rejection. Even Prof. P C Hansen (DTU), one of the associate editors of SIAM, whose works significantly helped me build up a thorough understanding in the subject, didn't appear to be interested to help me in this regard unfortunately, despite my heartiest request. The Editor-in-Chief Dr. J. Hesthaven has informed the author by another letter than the decision of the concerned associate editor is final (who made his decision based on an "unfaithful" referee as the author directly proved). All of these facts firmly point to a clear and intentional injustice (this is not merely Author's opinion, rather "justified" by "documentary proofs") towards a dedicated researcher who works along with fighting his chronic severe psychiatric illness (Bipolar I disorder).

Also, another question which arises is, Why US journals like SIAM doesn't clearly mention in their policy that any quality research performed in Eastern World will be summarily rejected? The "pretension" of an official editorial process followed by a review process and then a rejection seems too dramatic (as if a script is being logically and honestly rejected!)...

Hence US scientific societies evidently are prohibiting potential works performed by Eastern World from publication (perhaps intentionally) to maintain the image o[censored]S prestige of superiority in scientific advancement towards the world. How long should this continue?

None of the administrators of SIAM seems to be interested to make any help towards the Author despite communication.

A few comments made by Dr. Robert J. Marks (Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University) seem pertinent:

(1)"Peer review today is done largely by reviewers who are not peers. Professors often assign paper review to senior graduate students. Associate Editors often do not examine a paper carefully, defaulting to the recommendations of the reviewers. Editors typically parrot the opinions offered by the Associate Editor"

(2) Plato’s Republic, Euclid’s Elements, and Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species had no peer review...[All of Einstein’s 1905] papers were published in Annalen der Physik, one of the major physics journals in Germany. But none of the papers were sent to referees...

(3) Albert Einstein only had one anonymous peer review in his career — and the paper was rejected! (by "Physical Review", another "leading" US scientific society and after the incident Einstein stopped submitting there his work)

(4) Peer review works but it is misnamed. I want my papers reviewed by true peers — not greenhorn amateurs...

Another comment which seems both surprising and relevant comes from the book "Einstein for the 21st Century" (Princeton University Press):

#If Einstein were reincarnated as graduate student today, it seems unlikely that he would complete a Ph.d.!

I shall be highly obliged if you kindly arrange to bring such miserable incident into public view (especially to scientific community) by your esteemed column. With heartiest respect and thanks,

-Yours faithfully

Satwik Choudhury

Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre