Does peer review work?

Peer review is the process by which journals evaluate articles submitted to them, to decide whether to publish them. It involves the commenting on the papers by anonymous "peers" - that is, others in the field. It is generally regarded as an integral part of the process of publication and is respected by many - but is it the right way to go?

I ask for a reason. Sometimes peers are not as insightful as one might suppose. Their views may be unfounded, misconceived or simply plain wrong - yet they determine whether a particular paper is published. A recent example comes to mind. I submitted a paper to a journal and received comments in due course. What I found interesting, was the difference in approach of the reviewers. One was positive in his examination of the paper, looking at the good and suggesting ways it could be even better. He thought the paper very interesting. The other reviewer, however, was extremely aggressive and seemed personally affronted by the paper. What was very telling about his review was that he had MISUNDERSTOOD THE PAPER. His critiques were based on perceived flaws that had no relevance to the paper. He even criticized it because he wrote that something was not included. In fact, it was included and was clearly stated early on in the paper. It was clear that he had not even read the paper with any care, at all.

Guess which reviewer the editor had been more influenced by? That is right: the negative review. Yet, the negative review was plain wrong in his understanding of the paper. His criticisms, though phrased in an erudite manner, were erroneous to the core. They showed that he did not understand the experiment, or why it had been conducted in the manner it had. Yet, rather than see through the problems with this reviewers review, the editor had, it is clear, been convinced by it. The other quite positive review was ignored in its favour.

Thus it is that the reviewer who saw value in the paper was ignored and the reviewer who did not understand the paper, won out. Clearly, this is not how it should be. Reviewers determine the fate of papers, yet reviewers may not be insightful, knowledgeable, impartial or understanding. Sometimes, reviewers write responses for reasons that have nothing to do with the contents of the paper itself. For instance, the negative reviewer seemed to take exception to my co-author, from comments he made, that, perhaps, he did not realize I would see.

I think that peer reviews should not be allowed to impede the dissemination of scientific work. They should take place after publication and not before. They should be public, for all to see - and perhaps it would be better if they were not anonymous, so that certain reviewers would not be free to pursue private agendas, in secret.

All papers should be publishable at once. Then, the assessment process should begin. The system, as is, lends itself to abuse. It is too easy to suppress another's work, to frustrate another's progress, if that is one's intent. It is also rather random whether or not reviewers are good - that is, whether they understand the work and are true to it - or not.

Personally, I found it rather odd that one reviewer should have expressed himself with such forceful hostility - and yet, the other reviewer clearly appreciated the work and was of a mind to let it be published, with some well chosen improvements. It was almost as if they had been reading different papers. (Except for the fact that the hostile reviewer hadn't read it carefully at all).

There are moves, in some quarters, towards changing the way peer review is done. There are some places where peer review takes place after publication. This is the best way - from the point of view of access to knowledge. I hope to see it become the predominant paradigm, in years to come. After all, for most of the history of science, peer review just was not done at all - and that didn't stop science from advancing. Einstein's four famous papers in his "annus mirabilis", of 1905, were not peer reviewed. They were simply published because the editor of the journal, in question, thought them interesting. Perhaps, today, he would have had problems publishing them at all, facing reviewers of the kind I encountered with my own paper: ones who did not understand the work in front of them.

History shows that scientific advancement is not dependent on peer review (which only really became dominant from the middle of the last century)...so why is academia so enamoured of it? Could it be that peer review, itself, needs to be reviewed?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

A creative future

It is interesting to contrast Singapore and Malaysia. These two nations, once one, have taken a different path - and whilst many would think that Singapore is the more "successful" of the two, I am not at all sure that this will always be so. After all, it is not so great a secret that many of the "talents" that make Singapore a success actually come from Malaysia. The contribution of Singapore's homegrown talents is not as great, in many ways, as it should be. If the contribution of all foreigners, of all kinds, is added up, that makes up a great deal of Singapore's "success".

Anyway, the way things are now, is not, necessarily, the way it will always be. I read, today, something that suggests that Malaysia may have a brighter future than its neighbour, in decades to come. It is all a matter of what the education systems want to achieve. Singapore is presently focussed on glistening A grade students: only those with straight As are approved of. Yet, it doesn't take much observation of these youngsters (whom I have had much time to observe in my time as a teacher), to note something very much lacking in them: creativity. The way they are taught leads them to shine in exams, but to be utterly unable to think of anything new. In creative terms, almost all of Singapore's star students are "dead wood"...blockheads if you like. The one thing they never learned how to do was to think for themselves.

Malaysia has recently expressed the wish to do something different. Not for them the focus on "straight As" or rigid educational atmospheres where conformity is sought as a prime objective. No. Malaysia is going to adopt a mellower kind of education, one that encourages individuality, allows for creativity and doesn't demand perfect grades from all, as a basic requirement. What they are seeking is an education system which will allow creativity to grow and genius to be born. The whole PUBLIC education system is going to move away from being focussed on exams - as Singapore's is - and focus instead on nurturing creative young minds. (This announcement was made by the Deputy Prime Minister/Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, in the nation's newspapers including the New Straits Times - see below).

Now, if this change can be achieved - and I do wonder at how teachers who were themselves brought up with rigidity and conformity can be expected to give something different to their students - then Malaysia will soon become a very interesting place indeed. If the promise of this idea is kept, Malaysia will become a very special place indeed: it will produce generations of creative young minds, able to change the world, with their ideas. I hope they succeed. It would be refreshing, indeed, to be in a country focussed on creativity and not "grades". It is good to see that Malaysia realizes which, of the two ideals, is the more important.

Note: Source for the above news: New Straits Times, page 1 and page 6, several articles, 24th February 2010.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

The problem of genius in Singapore.

Singapore is notable for proclaiming itself as "No.1" in everything it can. At times, this is amusing, as ever more minor matters are proclaimed to be supreme achievements. Yet, in the realms of true achievements, Singapore is distinctly lacking. Where, for instance, are Singapore's geniuses?

By "genius", I do not mean people adept at examinations (Singapore has plenty of those...the whole educational system is dedicated to "results")...no, I mean people who go on to make a plethora of important creative contributions. By this measure, Singapore has no known ADULT, native-born, geniuses (though, as I have pointed out, there is the odd child prodigy, who might, with support, become one).

Now, the usual excuse trotted out by Singaporean leaders when Singapore is unable to do something is that it is "too small". So, no doubt in the case of the lack of genius, they would proclaim Singapore's lack of numbers. This excuse is no excuse at all, since smaller countries (in terms of population), like Ireland (my own), have no trouble littering their history with a respectable abundance of geniuses. No: size is not the trouble...the nature of the society is. Genius cannot thrive in a society that gives it no freedom to live. Singapore is one such place. It is a place of so many restrictions, constrictions, limitations and barriers, that it is a surprise that anyone manages to thrive at all. The truth, of course, is that they don't thrive, in the ways which are important. Yes, they live prosperous economic lives, but they utterly lack intellectual lives. The average Singaporean never has a thought in their lives, that is their own. They compute by imported, second-hand thought and live, thus, second-hand lives. It is a nation of people who yielded up their rights to an inner life, sometime in early childhood. The result is clear to see: no-one here has the makings of a genius.

I came across a quote by the writer J. B. Priestley (1894 to 1984) that I thought eminently explanatory of Singapore's situation:

"We should like to have some towering geniuses, to reveal us to ourselves in colour and fire, but of course they would have to fit into the pattern of our society and be able to take orders from sound administrative types".

These words, at once, seemed to describe Singapore's situation. It is a place in which the dullest of people are in charge, resulting in dullness seeping through society, top-down. They exert themselves solely to control the lives of those "below" them; to put in place rules and structures, that make for an orderly society. Of course, the result of all this, is that anyone with the potential to be a genius, finds that they live in a society that does not welcome their nature. Singapore seems deliberately designed to be hostile to genius. It would be difficult to conceive of anywhere less likely to foster an independent thinker, than this small, anally-retentive, city-state.

Singapore will remain the natural breeding ground of "sound administrative types" for as long as it focusses on the control of its people. As long as Singapore prioritizes the "moulding" of minds (as so many of its schools disturbingly proclaim on banners, on their perimeters); rather than the freeing of them, Singapore will be a country notable as the No.1 place not to find geniuses. They will be, instead, No.1 in "Sound administrative types". Wow. What an achievement that would be...No.1 in "human dullness"; No.1 in "conformity of thought."; No.1 in "We know better"; No.1 in "That's not allowed."

Singapore is very much like Priestley's quote: they state that they would like to breed creative people...but they insist on an environment which is hostile to them. Basically, they want creative people to grow up in an environment designed to destroy them...so that they can have the benefit of their creativity, whilst not yielding up the control of people's lives, and minds. Oddly, it has never occurred to them, that their two aims, are incompatible. Singapore cannot control the lives and minds of its people, to the level it presently does - AND have geniuses. The former will destroy the latter.

If Singapore truly wishes to be the birthplace of an abundance of geniuses and lesser creative thinkers, it must become free in all ways that it is possible to be free. The first freedom should be the right for anyone to say anything they please, at anytime they please, about anything they please. This single change to the social landscape of Singapore would free tongues that have long been silent, to begin to speak. There is no telling what they might say...but one thing is for sure, it would be a whole lot more interesting and a whole lot more creative, than a nation dominated by "Sound administrative types".

As I have noted, in one post before, Singapore, as it is presently constituted, will one day be completely forgotten. I mean not just this era and these people - but the whole nation. As hard as it may be for Singaporeans to imagine, there will come a time when not one person, on Earth, or beyond, has ever heard of Singapore, or Lee Kuan Yew and the family Lee. No-one will ever have heard of them. The reason for this is that history is long and filled with too much information. As time passes, it becomes longer...until, eventually, the only things that are remembered are the greatest of events: the greatest wars, the greatest conquests...and the greatest people. There is only one way that Singapore will ever be remembered: and that is if it is the nation that gives rise to at least one true genius. So far, no adult Singaporean, in its history, has ever achieved that status (state propaganda notwithstanding). Should no Singaporean ever achieve the level of true historical genius (a Leonardo da Vinci, or an Albert Einstein, or a William Shakespeare), then there will be no reason for Singapore ever to be remembered. A nation of "Sound administrative types" is unworthy of note in the modern world, and utterly without any reason for recall for posterity.

However, the nation where Mr or Miss Genius X, was nurtured, is a cause for remembrance. The world will forever know Vinci, for its genius, Leonardo. Will Singapore have cause to be remembered in a thousand years, or ten thousand? Will it be a land of a genius? Or will it be an unregarded nation of "Sound administrative types". It is for Singapore to decide. If Singapore wishes to be remembered, it would do well to forget the notion of pervasive state control of its people. It would do well not to be overly sensitive to the comments of its citizens and others. It would do well, to let them be free, to be. Only then, will Singapore do anything worthwhile, in the ultimate verdict of posterity.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals. If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Cambridge University: should a creative person study there?

No.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals. If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Some flattery is a crime.

Is it flattery, or a crime, to have one's work imitated? I am led to wonder this, recently, because I have learnt something that should give any creative teacher pause.

I once had the responsibility to teach a class of mainly Koreans (with a single Chinese student, too), oral English. There was no book to teach from, the school being of a mind not to source one. I was left, therefore, to my own devices and my own ideas. I had to devise a way to teach them oral English that would be stimulating and keep these very demanding young adults occupied. Therefore, I came up with my own approach to teaching that I had never seen used before, but which the students found most engaging. They became eager to attend classes and made great contributions to them. I had hit upon a success.

Anyway, without giving any details which might lead to more of what I was later to suffer, I continued teaching in this new way, with content of my own creation, for the entire duration of the course. Every lesson was in my own style, supported on my own thoughts. I reasoned that I was doing what was right, in the circumstances, given that I had not been provided with a course book, to bring out the best in the students. Indeed, they advanced very well in their spoken English and in other ways, too. They were growing more confident, more eloquent, more poised in their communication. I was pleased.

Yet, as I taught, someone in my class had other ideas than what I might have supposed. One Korean student saw my new teaching style as an opportunity. However, I did not find this out until too late.

I had given fully of myself, my thoughts, my ideas, my way of thinking. I had given the best that I could to the students. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I learnt that one of my former students had decided to write a book, based on my teachings. She intended to capture my thought on paper, make a book out of it - and sell it under her own name, as her own work, back in Korea.

Perhaps, I should have suspected something when I asked them what their ambitions were. This particular student said that she wanted to be a journalist and to write books. She further said that she wished to be "globally famous" and that she wanted, at this time, to write a book that would "help people". Little did I know that the book that would "help people" was my book, as it were, being based on my thoughts.

Since finding this out, I have pointed out to her that the classes were my thoughts and I jokingly said she intended to "steal my ideas for a book". Her reaction was unrevealing. She just smiled and said nothing, apart from "Thank you".

I do not know whether she will actually finish writing the book. I do not know whether she will publish it. However, I know this: at this time, she intends to write a book firmly based on my way of teaching, for the purpose of capturing this way, on paper, so that it might "help people"...and to lay claim to it, for herself.

This situation should give all teachers pause. Is it fair to be open and creative, as a teacher, if the students are going to steal the lectures and claim the content as their own? Should any teacher, therefore, teach creatively, or should all teachers teach solely from the book? Should all creative teaching come to a halt?

I would like you to think about Richard P. Feynman. He wrote a series of books based on his own lectures in Physics, and published them. They are great books. They teach physics in what was, then, a new way. They are eminently readable. Rightly, Feynman got the credit for creating this teaching material and this approach. However, imagine if one of his students had published a book based on Feynman's lectures that captured the essence of them...what if such a student had sought credit for the origination of this material? We might now think of Feynman's lectures as student X's lectures.

Now my example is a little different from my own, because Feynman was very famous and could have successfully objected to his material being imitated and would have been able to effect a retraction of it. I am not really in Feynman's position, however. I am not sufficiently well known to have any power or influence, at this time, over people. My objections may not be listened to. This student of mine, may become famous and successful in Korea before I even hear what she has done. By then, it would be rather too late.

(Then again, if Richard P. Feynman had not published his lectures during his lifetime, a student could have done so after his death, and he would not have been around to influence the situation or object to it.)

The other issue is copyright. Copyright is a really weak protection of authors. So many authors get stolen from and cannot fight successfully for their work. Dan Brown, of the Da Vinci code, for instance, apparently copied at least two other books in writing his book. The imitations are very clear and obvious once pointed out. (They include blow by blow identities of plot, situation and character). One would have thought that they were unarguable. However, Dan Brown's superior lawyers and financial might, has enabled him to fend off copyright infringement suits from both wronged parties. I have no doubt, having seen the evidence, that Dan Brown is in the wrong...yet he won. The same applies to my situation. Her imitation will be clear, and obvious...but will I be able to establish it, in a court of law? She might be able to wriggle out of it and get away with a book based on my own work, as her "own".

So, I think teachers need to be cautious before their students. Teachers need, in fact, to hamper their own teaching, if they are to be protected from this kind of thing. There is a strong argument, therefore, that a teacher should never teach without a course book. The teacher should never be in a position of having to invent their own material every lesson. You see, as soon as a teacher begins to invent their own material, that material might be stolen by students who find it useful and turn it into books that could have been and should have been the teacher's.

I still don't know how this situation will turn out. However, I think this student will be in for a surprise regarding how much of a fuss I kick up, over this. I am not one to let another steal my work, without seeking redress, in a comprehensive way.

Every teacher should be free to be creative. In fact, everyone should be free to be creative, without fear of being plagiarized. There is a need for better copyright laws to make sure that this is so. The protection for creators needs to be strengthened and the penalties for infringement need to be heightened. Indeed, I would urge custodial sentences on copyright infringers. The penalties need to be strong enough to deter.

We will know the balance has been achieved, when Dan Brown is no longer one of the richest authors in the world and the people he "learnt from" are duly compensated.

That is the kind of world that would also protect any creative teacher from the kind of infringement I now face.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

In search of freedom.

A couple of days ago, I learnt that someone I knew was leaving Singapore, quite suddenly.

Now, I had thought him well-established here. He is an American and his wife is from South America. He is a teacher. She is a singer/musician. They both had jobs. Between them, their income was very good, surprisingly good, in fact. You see his singer wife is in demand and is very well paid for the corporate gigs that she has been doing. In addition she has been singing for "good money", 3 hours a night in clubs in Singapore. So, financially speaking, they were content here. Yet, something was not right, here. In Singapore, they did not feel free to be themselves.

My American friend's wife was the one most unhappy with it all. The problem was that, in Singapore, she felt that she was living in a kind of straitjacket. She is a creative person, but here she was not allowed to create. Every night she sang and some days, too...but whenever she did, she was never allowed to do her own material, never allowed to improvise, explore or create. All that she was ever allowed to do was "cover versions" of other people's songs. She found the musicians she worked with highly skilled in a technical sense - but none of them showed any creativity - or did not, at least, show any evidence of it, in her presence. They were consumed with the desire to replicate the work of others as faithfully as possible. She found this tiresome. Where she came from, true musicians were always experimenting, exploring and growing. Here, she was not allowed to grow or become or create - she was enforced to imitate.

Now, it is not her fellow musicians, alone, that are the problem. The other problem is that the audience actually seem to crave well-performed cover versions. They enjoy hearing replication at work. They also seem to dislike anything new or experimental. So, even if a musician is creative here, they might find their creativity unwelcome.

They felt the straitjacket in other aspects of life, here, too. There is not much creativity in Singapore...it is a place that excels in conformity. This fact made them uncomfortable. They felt that they couldn't truly be free to be themselves in a place that so expected a uniformity of behaviour from everyone. At least, that is the way it seems to them. They felt, in short, oppressed by the essence of the place. They felt that here, they would never be allowed to be themselves.

So, one day, they both decided to jack in their jobs and leave. They have already bought tickets and have a destination in mind - and even jobs lined up.

The question is: how many creative people is Singapore losing - or never gaining in the first place - because creative people might feel too restricted here? Does this loss of creative individuals not harm Singapore? Does it not reduce the likelihood that anything new or special will come out of this small city state?

I am left to wonder how pervasive the need to conform is, here, when even music is not allowed to live - when even something as inoffensive as the sound that comes to one's ears, must conform, absolutely, to expectation, with no surprises. Surely, creativity should be welcomed...and not pushed away, as they have been?

The funny thing is, this decision of theirs to leave was prompted by a holiday in Bali. To them, the place felt so much more alive and authentic and free...so that is where they are going, now. So who has it right: the self-adoring No.1 nation in the world...or its poorer, but apparently freer, neighbour? Bali may be poor - but a creative couple felt more welcome there.

I think there is a lesson in this tale for ambitious Singapore. It can still learn from its "poorer" neighbours.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)