From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:14:07 -0000
Archived: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:10:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration


>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 20:59:17 -0500
>Subject: Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration

<snip>

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

Hi William,

If it's a controversial/breakthrough idea then it's a waste of
time submitting it to any 'peer-review' process.

As the Independent or Guardian explained a few days ago, 'peer
reviews' (and the closely linked funding committees) are forced
to opt for mediocrity - breakthroughs are forbidden. (The
article said that Einstein would've certainly been turned down
by 'peer review'.)

Here's a few more examples - Fermi's 'breakthrough' was rejected
by 'Nature' as being "beyond the realms of reality" or some such
snooty wording:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)#Controversies

and Gott, Gunn, Schramm, and Beatrice Tinsley also had their
paper on the Universal Omega thrown out:

www.perceptions.couk.com/greatest.html#journal

and Cecilia Payne was forced to add a note to her  entirely
correct thesis (1925) saying that it was "clearly untrue" -
merely because it contradicted the establishment view.

So some influentiol folk are muttering that modern 'peer review'
is killing progress and should be scrapped, some even saying
"Just publish yourself and let the audience evaluate it".

Maybe that's the way to go.


Cheers

Ray D



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.