Peer Reviewed Article Ammunition

Mark,

I am a Capt in the Canadian Army and I just got dressed down by my boss, a LCol, for advising everyone who will listen that they should train their troops to get stronger using the Starting Strength model in lieu of farting around with the conventional forms of group PT (running, ruckmarching, circuits, hot/sweaty/tired thrashabouts, etc...). The basis of his anger with me is that it contradicts the official policy articulated by the Great Big Heads in Ottawa. I was ordered to not work in my official capacity as a commissioned officer to train soldiers in the most efficient and effective way I know and to instead tow the party line.

He said that he will not accept any of the arguments that I am making until I can get published in a peer reviewed journal.

Well challenge fucking accepted. I am going to target The Canadian Military Journal, since it is peer reviewed, it presents a much lower bar for me to get across than a sports science journal and it is aimed at my target audience.

I will aim to produce a 1000-3000 word article that will stand up, but I need to collect peer reviewed sources to make the argument ironclad.

I know that there are a whole tonne of sources in Starting Strength and in Practical Programming that are for peer reviewed journals. I haven't gone to those books yet because I am still sort of angry about the conversation I just had.

I would appreciate any support or guidance that you may have.

Thank you,

James

Sorry James, but there are no references to "peer-reviewed research" in the books. There are several reasons for this.

The Problem with “Exercise Science” | Mark Rippetoe

The Progressive Exercise Science Community Embarrasses Itself Again | Mark Rippetoe

The Truth about the Starting Strength Method | Mark Rippetoe

Women in Ground Combat | Mark Rippetoe

This one, a publication of the military that will soon conquer your small country, references the blue book:

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_p...-000-WEB-1.pdf

Ack,

What I'll do is mine the Barbell Prescription for sources to jam pack my article with lots and lots of sources from very sciency looking publications. It won't really change the substance of the arguments, but it will add an appearance of complexity that will satisfy reviewers.

I wouldn't recommend conquering Canada. The military campaign would be a walkthrough, but the occupation would be intolerable.

Just call 'em a pussy. It will be less damaging to your career and personal mental health than proving the idiot in charge wrong.

Sounds like those are HIS preferred methods of exercise. You're not likely to convince him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David A. Rowe

Just call 'em a pussy. It will be less damaging to your career and personal mental health than proving the idiot in charge wrong.

---

That would have been satisfying in the moment, but I also have a pretty good working relationship with him. It just so happens that he's very by the book, and if the official policy says to do something, it's what you do.

If I wanted to be a smartass I would ask where in a peer-reviewed journal it says that I shouldn't site an artillery battery on the forward slope of an exposed hill or if that's just something that experienced people learned over the years was a bad idea.

So all I have to do is convince an entrenched bureaucracy that views journals as the unassailable truth, and that shouldn't be too hard, right?

Young Captain, you are in a difficult position. I hope my experience in attempting to publish a peer reviewed paper may provide some context.

I submitted to a second or third tier publication which is very specific to my line of work, a very small niche within the engineering world.
Here’s how it goes when you attempt this. When you submit it to the Editor in Chief (EIC), you will provide several keywords (in your case, perhaps “squat” or strength’). The keyword will be the basis for the EIC to determine who among his/her very small number of willing reviewers has an expertise in those keywords. But, here is the rub: it really doesn’t matter if the reviewers are actually qualified to perform a peer review of work related to those keywords.
As long as the reviewer is willing, the EIC will be more than happy to send it to said reviewer. The journal has a minimum number of reviewers needed for a peer review. In my case it was five. Only two knew my topic. The other three rejected my paper, so it wont see the light of day by a 3-2 vote.
These journals have a tough time finding people willing to spend time reviewing papers. Understandably so. With your topic the reviewers are probably Exericise Science PhDs who have published previously....and we know what’s the ExSci dogma is when it comes to a program like Starting Strength.

Now the real conflicts come. Strike 1 is that you are are a practitioner and not an academic. Unless your re an academic, affiliated with a university or research institution, regardless of the quality of your tests and research, they may not be inclined to accept it. They are the gate keepers and they generally don’t like people like you or me crashing their little world. That world appears to be open only to those who are forced to play the publish or perish game, of which we are not a part of.

Second, in your case, you will be confronting decades of Army doctrine. No matter who good your testing and documentation is, this is a big task.

And please do not let this paper and the quest to get it published become a Moby Dick level obsession, it somehow happened to me. You and your men (and your career) are probably best served by directing your limited time and effort to other goals.

Not impossible, but remember this: Be proud to be a practitioner and not an academic. You and I understand things that the back office non-practitioners will never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyGun

Young Captain, you are in a difficult position. I hope my experience in attempting to publish a peer reviewed paper may provide some context.

I submitted to a second or third tier publication which is very specific to my line of work, a very small niche within the engineering world.
Here’s how it goes when you attempt this. When you submit it to the Editor in Chief (EIC), you will provide several keywords (in your case, perhaps “squat” or strength’). The keyword will be the basis for the EIC to determine who among his/her very small number of willing reviewers has an expertise in those keywords. But, here is the rub: it really doesn’t matter if the reviewers are actually qualified to perform a peer review of work related to those keywords.
As long as the reviewer is willing, the EIC will be more than happy to send it to said reviewer. The journal has a minimum number of reviewers needed for a peer review. In my case it was five. Only two knew my topic. The other three rejected my paper, so it wont see the light of day by a 3-2 vote.
These journals have a tough time finding people willing to spend time reviewing papers. Understandably so. With your topic the reviewers are probably Exericise Science PhDs who have published previously....and we know what’s the ExSci dogma is when it comes to a program like Starting Strength.

Now the real conflicts come. Strike 1 is that you are are a practitioner and not an academic. Unless your re an academic, affiliated with a university or research institution, regardless of the quality of your tests and research, they may not be inclined to accept it. They are the gate keepers and they generally don’t like people like you or me crashing their little world. That world appears to be open only to those who are forced to play the publish or perish game, of which we are not a part of.

Second, in your case, you will be confronting decades of Army doctrine. No matter who good your testing and documentation is, this is a big task.

And please do not let this paper and the quest to get it published become a Moby Dick level obsession, it somehow happened to me. You and your men (and your career) are probably best served by directing your limited time and effort to other goals.

Not impossible, but remember this: Be proud to be a practitioner and not an academic. You and I understand things that the back office non-practitioners will never know.

---

Sorry to chip in but I wanted to add something to watch out for. Due to the pressure on academics to publish there are a large and growing number of 'predatory publishers'. These companies position themselves as peer reviewed journals and usually have similar names to reputable journals. It has and does burn many academics when published in these. Be absolutely sure its a reputable journal you are approaching.

They make money by charging academics a large fee to publish.

Good luck.

Predatory publishing - Wikipedia