Quote:
|
A tactic used by cranks is to create "Journals" in order to create the impression of being peer reviewed.
|
if you look at
The Journal of Cosmology about page it has people from different university's involved in it as well. Some are head of their departments, its not just him. If he is a "crank" (Chandra Wickramasinghe) why/how dose he hold his position at the University of Buckingham, he must be doing something right? even if the journal is suspect (where is the proof it is) the man still has Published "over 350 papers in major scientific journals, over 75 in the journal Nature" he doesn't sound like a crank Plus people are reviewing the evidence he presented in his Journal, (even if it is negative to his findings) isn't it still being peer reviewed? as other scientists are reviewing it and saying its wrong.
What is a "peer reviewed journal" anyway?
If the meaning of peer review is -
Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field
Do the articles in it, have to be reviewed by peers, as being true before they are accepted in it? or can they put an article (like the one in "his" journal) into a "peer review journal" and then its reviewed by peers. I fail to see how the The Journal of Cosmology is not a valid peer reviewed Journal? Its being put out by major academics in major academic institutions, it must have some creditability even if some of the theories are out there.