Re: The original version

From: vldm10 <>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:06:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

I received an email from Lars Ronnback, one of the Anchor Modeling authors on August 25, 2010.
Among other things he explained to me that he and the other authors have not read my paper. (“Unfortunately we have not read yours. Have you got a URL to where we might find it?”)

Previously, I had posted the website addresses that contained my papers from 2005 and 2008, but I suppose Mr. Ronnback wanted to know the “URL” of a journal in which my paper was published. This leads to the conclusion that:
1) Mr. Ronnback of Anchor modeling maybe thinks that papers from web sites and user groups do not have any rights. 2) That things are not as I present them.

So I decided to post this text, though I had not intended to. I submitted my paper on August 21, 2008 in Journal of Computing and Information Technology (from Croatia). Croatia is a country of my origin.
Almost a year went by after the paper was submitted without any information about whether the paper had been accepted or rejected. I realized that the paper could not be published even after a year, I contacted the Editor-in-Chief S. Lonacaric and informed him I would publish the paper on my website, and in the case that it was accepted, I would give all the rights to his journal. I quickly received a message from D. Mladenic (from Slovenia ), the Associate Editor, that my paper was rejected. I inquired about the reviewers and got the answer that I could not get reviewers names nor contact them. So if one is interested in my paper, she/he can contact above mentioned editors.

The only comment D. Mladenic made that was targeted at a specific part of my paper was absurd. Here, the reviewer questions my employing the same example twice, though these are actually two different examples; see in the reviewer comment: “…instead of using practically the same example more than once (see subsections 3.7 and 3.8)…”

I complained because in my opinion this paper was rejected without any scientific arguments. My complaint was refused. Then suddenly, quite by accident, I came upon the paper Anchor Modeling. I wrote to the chief editor, S. Loncaric and stated that Anchor Modeling was only a special case of my paper. I wrote that it had received an award for the best paper of 2009 at ER Congress. I also wrote that Anchor Modelling employs my ideas from my paper published in 2005.

S. Loncaric has never responded to my note. As I mentioned S. Loncaric is Editor-in-Chief in this journal.

I have since given up on publishing this paper in a journal, and have published the submitted version online. As far as I know, the aforementioned editors are not experts in databases. According to their CV's, research by D. Mladenic is connected to "Machine Learning, Text meaning", and the research by S. Loncaric is connected to "Imaging".
All my life I work with databases, I was project leader on several very complex projects.
At that point I began this thread. In my opinion the results of my paper are important.

So, I put the main idea from the paper on web and on this user group on September, 2005. I submitted my paper on August 21, 2008; published the submitted version on my web site on March 7, 2009. Anchor Modeling got award as the best paper on November, 2009.

I think this thread provides some experience for those who express their ideas on the user groups and on their websites. It seems that there are people who think that scientific texts, posted on a website (user group), are not relevant scientific texts. I mean on a text which is obviously the original scientific text.

Vladimir Odrljin

Regarding the rejection of my paper D. Mladenic sent me the following:

“Reviewer nr.1 comment:
Major remarks:
In general, the idea of the research is not clearly represented and the paper is not well-structured.
Introduction section of the paper should contain more concrete description of the research problem (significance, motivation and possibly the list of contributions).
It would be necessary to add a Conclusion section which would summarize the main achievements and key results of the research. In addition, it would be useful to include in the paper a Related work section with an overview of existing methodologies and various approaches applicable for a given research topic. Besides it, the comparison with other relevant methodologies could be made and the list of references (literature cited) could be augmented. It would help to explicitly state the originality of the performed research.

Minor remarks:
Clarity of the article should be improved. All examples, tables and formulas should be enumerated and the text of the article itself should be formatted in a more suitable way for reading. As well, it would be helpful to give examples along with definitions. At the same time, instead of using practically the same example more than once (see subsections 3.7 and 3.8), the references on the used example should be made.
Furthermore, several references to cited literature are missing (see subsection 4.2.1).
In addition, references to new concepts, new terms and formulas introduced in the paper should be done in a coherent way. In particular, for the reader who is
reading the subsection 3.3 it might be inconvenient to refer to the definitions in the subsections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

Finally, several English phrases should be reformulated and spelling mistakes should be corrected:
- "According to G. Frege, two concepts are coextensive if every thing
that satisfies either satisfies the other" (see subsection 4.2.1);
- "We assume that the m-entity matches an entity if all it's the m-
 match the corresponding entity's attributes carried by information" (see subsection 4.2.2);
- "5 Determining Plurality - Identifying And Istinguishing
Entities" (see section 5). “

Received on Sun Jan 30 2011 - 15:06:54 CET

Original text of this message