Vodka Article Rejected

[invincible569]

Hey Guys, Randy stated that the Vodka article was rejected by Reefkeeping.com. If I remember correctly, Jorge Kokott has his own business. Is this what he sells? was the reason it got rejected because it became commercial towards his company?

[StephenS]

I wonder if the "experts" did not like what was said.

[gtrestoration]

It seems to me a large percentage of the articles used are from someone in the industry that has a for-profit company so I don't see that as an issue.

My thoughts...
#1...some reviewers did not see it as a viable system for a hobbyest
#2... political reasons not unlike those seen not long ago

SteveU

[mmmmsushi]

#3 There is a huge conspiricy. And I am the leader of it all ... AHH HAHAHAHAHAH... *Cough* *Cough*.... yeah

[gtrestoration]

Sushi...
All that needs to be done is to have someone explain why it was rejected. Otherwise your #3 seems another logical choice.

SteveU

[mmmmsushi]

Just trying to "help" (waste time at work).

[gregt]

I'm 100% certain that the reason the article was rejected was explained to the author.

PS> Even I have had articles rejected.

[gtrestoration]

Thanks Greg...

Not knowing the process of approval...
Are authors given a chance to make minor modifications prior to being denied to address the concerns of the reviewers, or is it all or nothing in these situations?

I'm glad someone is looking out for those in the hobby, I'd just prefer they didn't look out for me.:)

SteveU

[gtrestoration]

Sushi...
:thumbsup:
SteveU

[gregt]

I'm sure the editors are more than willing to review modifications. I'm certain that no article is printed exactly as initially submitted. Of course, the likelyhood that a resubmission is accepted would be relative to the reason it was originally rejected.

In the case of one of my articles, the editors just didn't feel it would be of interest to the audience the magazine is shooting for. I disagreed, but it's their magazine so I moved on. I could have resubmitted the article after changing it to fit the audience more, but I chose not to.

This process is between the author and the editors of the magazine. I'm not certain what purpose this thread provides other than to throw more stones at an already beaten up staff.

[gtrestoration]

I disagreed, but it's their magazine so I moved on.

I'd prefer you didn't use those last two words.:)

As for stone throwing, I can't speak for others here but I'm not throwing stones at anyone over this. The conspiracy theory has nothing at all to do with either RC or the publication. I have no idea if in fact those two are one in the same.

I just find Randy's opinion on the article very interesting and it seems others reviewers don't see it the same way.

This could be a case similar to yours but I doubt it.

This process is between the author and the editors of the magazine.

I agree to some extent but since the Vodka thread has been going for some time now there are many who were waiting for it to be published, myself included. Most here are not the type to just say "Oh, that's ok".:rolleyes: I'm sure you've learned that already.:)

SteveU

[gregt]

I stand corrected on one point. You have every right to complain if you wish. I have often disagreed with the editors and have made my opinion well known in some of those cases.

It is only my personal feeling that it is tacky to do so in this case as it is, IMO, an issue between the author and the editors. But that is just my opinion.

[invincible569]

Originally posted by gregt
I stand corrected on one point. You have every right to complain if you wish. I have often disagreed with the editors and have made my opinion well known in some of those cases.

It is only my personal feeling that it is tacky to do so in this case as it is, IMO, an issue between the author and the editors. But that is just my opinion. \

yea it is.

what if he decided to post his article on RC as a thread? would that be ok? If so, I want to ask him. If not, I wont bother.

[gtrestoration]

Greg,
I understand your position.
But understand mine, I just want to read an article that has been talked about for some time. I'm sure though that day will still come.

As for tacky, I think in most cases the fact that the acticle was even being submitted would not be public. Since it was, I think the rules of tack are different.

Heck, I don't even know how I know it won't be published. I don't think Jorg posted it.

SteveU

[gregt]

Originally posted by gtrestoration


Heck, I don't even know how I know it won't be published. I don't think Jorg posted it.

SteveU

My point exactly. I really don't like discussing third party info as if I know what I'm talking about.

I'm not aware of any rules in the UA prohibiting posting an article that isn't copyrighted. Of course, that would probably kill any likelyhood that a publisher would pick up the rights to the piece.

[Skipper]

FYI...
I believe the article was published in Der Meerwasseraquarianer. The article, comments regarding the article, including other articles in German are available. You can then use Babel Fish (Alta Vista), Google, and double check others for translation from German.

[Jens Kallmeyer]

Originally posted by invincible569
Hey Guys, Randy stated that the Vodka article was rejected by Reefkeeping.com. If I remember correctly, Jorge Kokott has his own business. Is this what he sells? was the reason it got rejected because it became commercial towards his company?

HI

I am somewhat puzzled that the rejection of an article is openly discussed in a forum. Personally I find this fact quite disturbing. If any of my articles, may it be in a professional journal or a hobby mag is rejected I would not want this to be discussed in the public. My opinion may be different from that of other people (which I absolutely tolerate) but the fact that this thread actually exists is a strong indicator for me not to consider any artivcle for publication in RC.
Regarding invincible's comment on Jörgs profession, during the time the article was under revision at RC, he did not own a company, nor has he had any commercial relationship to a company of any kind. He had actually just finished his MsC and was sorting out his next steps, which he did very nicely. He stil does not own a company, nor works for one that would in any way make money with filtration techniques.
And what should he sell with his own non-existent compnay? Vodka? Hey, get real! Nobody can really make money on the Vodka method.
Moreover, I am asking myself what this thread is doing in the ZeoVit Board, this is somewhat off-topic.

Sincerely

Jens

[invincible569]

Jens,

Sorry about posting this thread as I didnt mean any harm to Jorge. I just wanted a simple answer as to why it was rejected just like everyone else. As greg stated, his also get rejected too and Im sure there are plenty of others that have the same outcome. I still have a lot of respect for Jorge from his previous posts. the guy knows his ****! Thats another reason why I wish I could of read his work. I also posted this in the Zeovit forum because there are a lot of German browsers in here than any other forum (more posts also) who I thought would of gave me an instant simple answer.

[Jörg Kokott]

Hi,

Randy was the only reviewer who provided me with his comments on the article, however, I didn't get any information from the editor why this article has been refused by the two other reviewers.

Well, the article has been acepted by wetwebmedia where it will soon be published.


By the way,
I'm not selling vodka in plastic bottles for the reek keeping hobby. Sometimes I'm really wondering where people get their informations from...:rolleye1:

[Chicago]

vodka for sale as reef supplement. you guys are laughing. what about the guys who said lets bottle water and sell it. ???

"ultra reef vodka" a specialo blend distilled in the finest reef labs and consumed and tested by reefers!!!

for sale on ebay?

[bluereefs]

what about the guys who said lets bottle water and sell it. ???
He get rich:D

[wasp]

Jens and Jorg, just wanted to say there may have been something lost in the translation.
Invincible posted this thread out of concern the article was not published, and wanting to bring this to the attention of others as he actually would like to see the article published, as would I and many others.
In fact, the reason I am now using Zeovit is that vodka would have been my first preference, but i got tired of waiting for the article to be published, and wanted to do something.
Anyhow, some good has come of this as now we know it will be coming up on WWM, we will be watching for this.
Also, may I suggest that whoever sees it first post notification on this thread so the rest of us can go read it.

[trodder]

Jens,

I agree with wasp. I think this thread was made out of concern for all hobbyists in general... I think everyone was showing genuine concern for a person and their findings that have been put into writing. The purpose of the information was for the good of the hobby just the concern as to why those writings were not published. I believe the intent was to find out why the article was not published in hopes that maybe there would be a way to help get this accomplished by raising aawareness to one of the largest if not the largest worldwide resource in Reefkeeping (In other words RC.) Using RC is a powerful toolk in reefers helping other reefers. Even in the direction of helping ones spectacular article getting published by raising awareness in hopes that the right resource happens to see it and says "Hey I can help." Is that not what Reef Central, The Reef Tank, & all of those other Reef forums out there are all about???? If anyone thinks I am way off base here please tell me... I guess more than anyhting I hope my personal feelings and emotion are coming out right as intended and are understood as I hope they will be.

[Heinz]

well eric let germans not look good :(

but still a nice read :)

vodka article (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-10/eb/index.htm) and vodka part II (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-11/eb/feature/index.htm)

also i think thats the reason that reefkeeping did not puplish the vodka article,

judge for yourself

[Tom Berry]

Heinz,

I thought the same thing today when I read part II.

Tom:fish2:

[wasp]

I just wonder about the balance here.
Reefkeeping has published the Rebuttal, but in fact denied their readers the chance to read the actual study itself. Rather odd, when the rebuttal contains numerous references to the article.

Also, I hold Eric in high regard, but in his own words (sort of) no one is omnipotent, and in this case i believe his article contains flaws. One example, out of several, is in the paragraph immediately below the sub title "Critique of the Method and Discussion" where it is more or less implied that high phosphates and nitrates are not detrimental to corals, and you could even read it that they are beneficial.
I regard this article as an opinion rather than good science.
But my main complaint is the lack of balance, one side of the discussion being published for all to read, and the other side being suppressed.

[gtrestoration]

Real nice to see the other side of the story.
I can't quite put a value on it not knowing the other side. It's nice to be protected.
SteveU

[Jens Kallmeyer]

Originally posted by wasp
I just wonder about the balance here.
Reefkeeping has published the Rebuttal, but in fact denied their readers the chance to read the actual study itself. Rather odd, when the rebuttal contains numerous references to the article.



Dear wasp et al.

Your post really sums it up. There is nothing to add to it.
The editors of Reefkeeping Magazine should reconsider their attitude towards potential authors and their rules of conduct (or the lack thereof) in terms of editoral handling

Cheers

Jens

[invincible569]

Originally posted by wasp

I regard this article as an opinion rather than good science.
.

Thats what I got out of it too. Especially when they were talking about "germans". I dont think that had anything to do with Vodka. More of an opinion.

[Big E]

The whole two part series is nothing but biased opinions & close minded attitude.

[gtrestoration]

I think the author has a good overall reputation in the industry. I also have no idea who makes such decisions. He is entitled to his opinion on the method and I respect it as just that. Just not sure how I can decide for myself.

As an aside... the other day a good friend asked my opinion on what I thought the best "Reef Book" available was now. In the past I've had a solid answer for that but nowadays I think you simply must read many books and opinions and then be able to decide on your own how you will proceed. That may still mean trial and error but at least you will have another idea of how to proceed. So much of the "Book" literature is several years old and these new or re-visited old ideas may be missing.
SteveU

[571958]

I think this whole Article by Reef Keeping is BS.

I doubt Eric did anything more than putting words as such that he do not have to be accountable of review Vodka method and protecting commercial interest:mad:

Look at the amount of junk out there, junk additives, junk snake oil to remove nitrate, phosphate and whatever and commercially availability.....................so how come no commends on those crap.

SHAME.

[gregt]

Let's keep the profanity out of it, ok?

[wasp]

I just wonder if it's fair to Captive Oceans to be having this discussion on their forum?
Perhaps it should be moved to another forum?

[gregt]

[moved]

[gtrestoration]

Max...
You have strong opinions on commercial products. I think most of those sold in the hobby were developed with some care to produce an indented result. Yes, of course they are being developed to create revenue for the creator/manufacturer. Without these companies producing these products we would be pretty much on our own to come up with just the right mix in our tanks.
In the past I've tried many products and in time I've been able to decide which I THOUGHT were good or bad, at least for my use.

As for the article in question the statements of the author are in fact his opinion and Reefkeeping is a common place for his views to be voiced. I'm very interested in other opinions on the method but it's difficult to make my own decision when at this point I've seen only the rebuttal.
I'm sure the time will come when the "Rest of the Story" will be made available to us.

SteveU

[Anemone]

Originally posted by wasp
I just wonder about the balance here.
Reefkeeping has published the Rebuttal, but in fact denied their readers the chance to read the actual study itself. Rather odd, when the rebuttal contains numerous references to the article.


from ReefKeeping Article (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-11/eb/feature/index.htm)

Upon finishing the results section of this article, and progressing to the discussion, barely a sentence existed which could be taken as correct. I would urge those so inclined to read this article to completely skip the discussion section. Virtually every statement concerning disease nutrient processes, and microbial ecology is conjecture and, in many cases, simply wrong. This is unfortunate, because if the authors had a better grasp of the processes occurring, had done adequate work to confirm their speculations, and focused diligently on a good experimental protocol, the effects noted in terms of such mismanaged aquaria that have high nitrogen and phosphorus levels (that admittedly are common enough) and their response to carbon inputs might lead to valuable developments (though I doubt a dosing schedule for vodka across all reef aquariums with such issues would be possible).

It seems pretty obvious that one of the science-content editors for ReefKeeping felt the article was not up to the "science" standards of the magazine. His education deals specifically with coral biology. If he says there are numerous errors in the non-published article in his area of specialization, I'll believe him.

People can complain all they want to, but quite frankly, the magazine has standards on what they will and will not publish.

The title of Eric's article is "the old becomes new, yet again:..." It's true, Vodka addition isn't a new method - I remember discussions about it as far back as 1998. Just because it has returned again as a potential reef-keeping method, doesn't make it "publishable" in a science-based magazine.

Offer real, repeatable experiments with measureable outcomes and controllable variables and I'm sure it would be published. Otherwise, ReefKeeping Magazine will end up looking like a subscription to the "Eco-Aqualizer of the Month" club.

FWIW,
Kevin

[gtrestoration]

IMO RK offers some very good information some of which I would not consider science but opinions and experiences.

I think though that we have all made our position clear an there is no possibility that anything will change as far as seeing it posted online here.

Kevin,
I just don't understand the need to print a rebuttal article when the original was declined. I think that's what most are saying now and why the thread was brought to the top again.

From your quote...
I would urge those so inclined to read this article to completely skip the discussion section.
Skipping that section seems to be any easy task.:)
SteveU

[Anemone]

Originally posted by gtrestoration
Kevin,
I just don't understand the need to print a rebuttal article when the original was declined. I think that's what most are saying now and why the thread was brought to the top again.


It's not an unmcommon practice. AA did a rebuttal to Dr. Schimek's urchin study. I've read "rebuttal" articles in the print mags (back when I was still subscribing to print mags :D ...) several times when that mag didn't print the original...

FWIW,
Kevin

[Skipper]

Moved to RK forum.

[Skipper]

Steve: did you miss the statement from the author that it will be published in Conscientious Aquarist soon? Also, that it had already been published in a German magazine?

[gtrestoration]

The Homeless thread.:)
Skip if you mean this...
Well, the article has been acepted by wetwebmedia where it will soon be published.
Yes I did thanks.
As for using an on-line, on-the-fly-translator, my experience with them is you may get the idea that you should be dosing your tank and not your glass, but little more. So much is lost in a word-for-word translation without grammer being corrected.
I visit a few German boards and can get the idea but also if in doubt I just PM a couple of members who said they would help.

Thanks...
SteveU

[571958]

Tell me guys.....Don't anyone of you find the article emotionally written. Read proper is my advise and u properly see there's no objective in the article.


I can only find commercial interest at heart.


:mad:

[Skipper]

I fail to see any involvement of commercial interest. Could you please enlighten me, 571958?

[gtrestoration]

I don't think it's commercial at all at least don't see what the author would have to gain. Though to be honest I see no point in reading it thoroughly as I don't have a clue what it's being critical of. There is no way for me to make my own decision reading only this side of the story.
But then I'm not fond of Jeopardy either and prefer to know the question.
SteveU

[shred5]

Originally posted by 571958
I think this whole Article by Reef Keeping is BS.

I doubt Eric did anything more than putting words as such that he do not have to be accountable of review Vodka method and protecting commercial interest:mad:

Look at the amount of junk out there, junk additives, junk snake oil to remove nitrate, phosphate and whatever and commercially availability.....................so how come no commends on those crap.

SHAME.

Eric does not endorse anything...

I do think that if this article got published the other one should have got a chance too....

Pure bull...

Dave