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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp