When we tried to publish a manuscript about our findings that there is something strange with the continuity within the European oak chronologies, our intention was merely to start a scientific discussion about the matter, as we had learned that successful publishing was a prerequisite for such a discussion.
Three unsuccessful trials later, we have at least learned that a peer review is not suitable as a discussion forum because the response time for each round is a couple of months and defence is impossible once a manuscript has been rejected. The peer review system was intended as a guard against dubious theses camouflaged as scientific results, but there is risk that it also efficiently blocks highly controversial or innovative approaches which are not immediately accepted or understood by the referees.
The exercise has one benefit though: most referees point out the relevance of the question we raised. Because even if we are wrong concerning our proposed 218-years-shift of Roman time, nobody has ever demonstrated what is right (as you can read in our most recent paper) and probably will not voluntarily do so in the near future. The next real chance for an objective "dating of Roman time" will be when St Andrews Scottish Pine Project can (hopefully) present a continuous curve over the last 3000 years or so. An even longer curve will be required for an absolute dating of QUB's Long Chronology.
Who lives will see ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note on our comments of the peer review: click on the links below to read our manuscripts and the referees' comments. We have highlighted the referees' statements which we find especially interesting and important. Our comments are given as "sticky notes". Just move the cursor over the symbol 
to read the comment, or click on the symbol to toggle the text on/off.
It is not possible to access any links in the pdf-files in Acrobat Reader directly. Copy the link and paste into your browser.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuscript "Dendrochronological dating of Roman time", submitted to Tree-Ring Research 2014-04-18, rejected 2015-02-20 Dendrochronological dating of Roman time
Comments referee 4. with our own comments TRR-Ref4-Feb2015ourcomments
Comments referee 5. with our own comments TRR-Ref5-Feb2015ourcomments
Comments referee 6. with our own comments TRR-Ref6-Feb2015ourcomments
Manuscript "Evaluation of the Irish oak chronology and its linkage", submitted to Tree-Ring Research 2012-12-08, rejected 2013-06-27 LarssonResearchReport
Comments referee 1. with our own comments TRR-Referee1-June2013ourcomments
Comments referee 2. with our own comments TRR-Referee2-June2013ourcomments
Comments referee 3. with our own comments TRR-Referee3-June2013ourcomments
Manuscript "How continuous is the European oak chronology?", submitted to Radiocarbon 2012-10-08, rejected 2012-11-09 16117-19224-1-SM , 16117-19225-1-SP
Comments reviewer B with our own comments RadiocarbonReviewerB
Comments reviewer C with our own comments RadiocarbonReviewerC