From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:47:00 +0000 Archived: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:10:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:41:21 -0500 >Subject: Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration >>From: Ray Dickenson<r.dickenson.nul> >>To:<post.nul> >>Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:14:07 -0000 >>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'.) >>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. >Hi Ray, >Thanks for your comments. I agree with them, but what I was >proposing was a way around the current peer review system and >more along the lines of your last statement. We can already >publish ourselves in the places I mentioned earlier, i.e., the >JFS, the UFO Digest, and the viXra archive, but there is no way >to know how it is evaluated by the audience. There is no >significant feedback to either the author or the readership. >I've published original stuff on my own website as well as those >other places, but I usually have no idea whether most people >think I'm nuts or I've discovered something important. Actually, >some people are only too ready to comment on the nutty ideas, >but few go out of their way to encourage the good ones. >Good ideas need positive and negative feedback to be developed >further, and bad ideas need it so they can die a timely death. >The rating system I proposed earlier would offer some feedback, >and perhaps comments could also be allowed after each article >similar to YouTube comments. These would need to be moderated, >of course, to weed out the detritus. From: Reader of William's original stuff on his website. Comment: I welcome new ideas, new approaches to long standing problems. I do not think you are crazy. Reader's initials: KK 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