UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Dec > Dec 26

Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration

From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 20:59:17 -0500
Archived: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:56:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration


>From: Jerome Clark<jkclark.nul>
>To:<post.nul>
>Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:37:23 -0600
>Subject: Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration

>>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:35:07 -0500
>>Subject: Journal Of Scientific Exploration [was: White House Ends...]

><snip>

>>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.

>Without passing judgment on your work - all I know about it is
>what you write here - I would remark that if you aren't able to
>get published in JSE, you are not going to get published in any
>professional journal. Thus, your work will have to take its
>chances in the realm of popular culture, not in the more
>rarefied precincts of scientific consideration.

That assessment is likely correct. There is probably not another
scientific journal that would publish the work I described. But
the existing system of review, where one or two people decide
whether or not something is publishable, may not be the only way
to evaluate an article. Maybe there is a more democratic way to
do this by taking into account the views of many readers.

I was hopeful that there was a move in this direction when
Stephen Bass began publishing the on-line Journal of Frontier
Science (JSF). This journal appears to have a peer review system
as well. However, I'm not sure if the decision to publish is
based on such reviews. In a few cases, a review is published
under the article reviewed. This implies that articles meeting
certain minimal criteria are published, and if a review is
written, it is published as well. Publishing the article no
matter what the reviewer thinks is a step in the right
direction.

I wonder if a system such as the JSF could be enhanced by
allowing a registered membership (as large a group as possible)
to rate any article on several relevant dimensions. Requests for
some binary classifications could also be included in order to
categorize the article. Every registered member reading the
article would be invited to rate it along the provided
dimensions, and select the classifications that apply. Perhaps
default settings for some classifications could be provided by
authors.

Ratings:
understandable:   very  O     O     O     O     O  not-at-all
important:            very  O     O     O     O     O  not-at-all
competent:           very  O     O     O     O     O  not-at-all

Classifications:
theoretical O    experimental  O

For each article, the system would keep a running tally of the
total number of ratings, and the proportion at each scale
position and each classification. The cumulative scores would be
displayed at the top of each article, possibly as a histogram.
Perhaps the ratings could also be reduced to an acceptable
composite score. Over time, each article would be seen as more
or less important, etc. based on the judgment of a number of
readers, not just one or two.

The JSF on-line repository could be adapted to this kind of
evaluation, and it might become more attractive to publish
there. Authors do want to see how their articles are received by
the reading public, and the reading public want to see where to
spend their reading time, and how well their opinions correspond
to the average opinion shown. It should be possible for readers
to request sorted listings of articles for any combination of
the dimensions employed - for example, the top 20 experimental
articles rated most important.

If the current publishers of on-line repositories are reading
this List, perhaps they might care to respond to this proposal.
Publications such as the JSF, the UFO Digest, and maybe the
viXra archive could be extended to include collection and
display of this kind of information.

How do List members feel about this proposal? Are there pros and
cons I have not considered?


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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com