From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:35:07 -0500 Archived: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:01:41 -0500 Subject: Journal Of Scientific Exploration [was: White >From: Jerome Clark<jkclark.nul> >To:<post.nul> >Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:13:37 -0600 >Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs& ETs With... >>From: Edward Gehrman<egehrman.nul> >>To:<post.nul> >>Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:47:25 -0800 >>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs& ETs With... ><snip> >I suggest a place to start on your way to Nobelhood. The Society >for Scientific Exploration, an organization of (mostly) >scientists with advanced degrees, publishes the Journal of >Scientific Exploration, which is open to intelligent, open- >minded consideration of anomalous materials and theories. Its >membership is educated in the relevant disciplines and isn't >hampered by party-line thinking, so you could count on a fair >hearing if you were to submit a formal paper outlining your >ideas and evidence. >If the JSE is willing to publish a peer-reviewed paper in which >you argue your theories <snip>, then come back. We'll know then >that we have to take you seriously. Without taking a position on the current discussion, I would not put up the JSE as the final arbiter of what theories to take seriously. In the last year, I submitted three papers there for publication, and all three were rejected. You might suggest that the quality of the work was such that they deserved to be, but I did not get that impression from the reviews. The issues raised seemed to be more about the assumptions underlying the work. Two papers tested predictions made by a model (not mine) of the Mayan calendar. One reviewer appeared aghast that such a fanciful model should even be contemplated. The reviewer of the second paper was less obvious, but ultimately resorted to the argument that a reported significant correlation had to be a statistical anomaly, without acknowledging that it was an a priori prediction. The third paper presented the discovery of related binary encoded images in two crop formations and in Jim Penniston's binary code from Rendlesham Forest. The reviewer's main argument in this case was that the paper did nothing to unravel the mystery of crop formations. I think finding such an obvious link between two formations eight years apart does go a little bit in that direction. Then connecting these images to Rendlesham Forest takes insight into these crop formations to another level. I admit my conclusions were based on reasonable inferences and may have been somewhat speculative, but they did not invalidate the data. I should also point out that each paper was reviewed by only one person. This seems a mistake even for a journal that supposedly is a little less bound by conventional prejudices. In such a supposedly enlightened group, there is still ample room for personal bias to shut down a reviewer's mind. In my experience, more conventional journals often have two or even three reviewers respond to a submission. Be assured that these comments about the JSE are not made out of a feeling of personal rejection. I don't feel the need to build up a resume anymore. It's too late in the game for that. I try to publish because I have information that might be of interest to other people. Having a journal put its stamp of approval on a paper helps to give it legitimacy. But having the paper rejected does not mean it has nothing interesting to say. Readers are their own ultimate arbiter of a piece of work. That's why I'm pleased to see the emergence of the viXra archive that accepts papers from anyone who follows reasonable rules of decorum. William Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp