Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
The "Alternative Cosmology Group Monthly Notes" site make it very murky. They take a mix of arXiv peer reviewed papers, (which seems to be how Arp, Hawkins, etc, get quoted as giving support to them), viXra non-scientifically reviewed papers and a new one: "Prespacetime Journal" and roll it all up to look like its all coming from a reputable peer-reviewed source.
Prespacetime Journal's charter reads:
"Note that this journal has a policy of willingness to publish controversial work as-is, along with open peer review (in the same or ensuing issue), for authors who elect this option. However; the editors do reserve the right to require reasonable scholarship in all submissions, to be considered for publication."
... So in this case, what's the difference between this and good 'old-boy-networked, discriminatory', arXiv ? The process repeats itself and ends up being from another 'old-boy-networked' perspective - just a different bunch of 'old-boys' !!
Come on guys ... this approach is just plain old subterfuge !
I started out this thread making the point that these guys, perhaps, deserved a chance ... but all this approach will do is dilute funding without providing any value in resolving any Astronomical/Cosmological issues and allow spin-doctors to have a field-day !
Cheers
PS: Apologies if you're left saying 'told-ya-so' Craig. I have investigated with an open mind and yet again .. it has led to nothingness ! It was worthwhile 'having a go', none-the-less.
|
This sort of thing is precisely why we have very rigorous peer review processes in journals such as MNRAS, ApJ, A&A etc. It's to keep the science honest and to make sure that what science gets into journals has some oversight, is sensible and backed up by not only theory but also strong empirical evidence. It's not about weeding out alternative views or theories, it's about making sure those views and theories make sense and are verifiable. It's not about allowing any old wild, speculative idea to be published, especially when it has little or no backing on any front. And it's not about allowing science (of any sort) to be debased.
There's a time and place for speculation and wild ideas, but it's not the recognised journals.