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.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp