On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:39 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> > wrote: > >> >this is an article about research published in PLoS ONE, a peer-reviewed >> > journal with a high impact factor (> 4). > > > I confess I've never heard of PLoS ONE, but maybe that is just my a > reflection of my ignorance, so I looked up the top 10 most cited (respected) > journals in the field of Neuroscience and Behavior and this is what I got: > > 1 Nature > 2 Science > 3 Neuron > 4 Nature Neuroscience > 5 PNAS > 6 Journal of Neuroscience > 7 Annals of Neurology > 8 Brain > 9 Biological Psychiatry > 10 Cerebral Cortex > > Dear me PLoS ONE doesn't seem to be there, but maybe its on the list of > overall most cited journals. > > 1 Journal of Biological Chemistry > 2 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA > 3 Nature > 4 Science > 5 Physical Review Letters > 6 Cell > 7 J. American Chemical Society > 8 Physical Review > 9 Journal of Immunology > 10 New England Journal of Medicine > > Not there either. Top 10 Physics journals maybe? > > 1 Science > 2 Nature > 3 Physical Review Letters > 4 Nuclear Physics > 5 PNAS > 6 Physics Letters > 7 Physical Review D > 8 Europ. Physical J. C > 9 Applied Physics Letters > 10 Nuclear Fusion > > Nope. How about Chemistry? > > 1 Nature > 2 Science > 3 PNAS > 4 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. > 5 J. Amer. Chem. Soc. > 6 Analytical Chemistry > 7 J. Medicinal Chemistry > 8 Electrophoresis > 9 Chemistry-European J. > 10 J. Combinatorial Chem. > > I still don't see PLoS ONE but let me know when any of the above journals > publishes something about NDE.
Wow... So before you were saying: "...reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed onto a obscure website..." Now it turns out that the "obscure website" is a proper peer-reviews journal with a well above-median impact factor, where nobel laureates submit articles to. Not good enough because you did a bunch of searches on web of knowledge and discovered that it is not on the top ten. PLoS ONE is the best known journal of the open-access movement, that aims to make scientific results publicly accessible for free. It's very recent (2006), so it couldn't possible have built an impact factor or page rank or whatever to rank on top ten lists. It is, however, quite impressive: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/06/21/plosone-impact-factor-blessing-or-a-curse/ "Last week PLoS ONE received its first impact factor — a stunning 4.351. This puts the open access journal in the top 25th percentile of ISI’s “Biology” category, a group of journals that sports a median impact factor of just 1.370." So impressive that Nature got a bit scared and created an open-access journal itself, called "Scientific Reports". > >> > Nobel laureates have published there. > > > Did they say anything of importance there? You be the judge: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001975 > A Nobel laureate once sent me a > note of little consequence, so what? ??? >> > with a high impact factor (> 4). > > > And for whatever its worth Nature has a "impact factor" of 31 and > Physiological Reviews of 37; and if a more advanced and detailed ranking > method is used that makes use of recursion and gives more weight to > citations from higher weight journals than lower ones (for example, I'm sure > PLoS ONE has cited Nature many times but I'll bet Nature has seldom if ever > cited PLoS ONE) > then Nature is the highest rank journal in the world with a > 51.15 follow by Science with a 47.72. And you're bragging about a 4? Degree distributions in citation graphs follow power laws. It's a "rich get richer" dynamic, so a 4 is actually quite impressive. Doubly so for such a recent publication. > >> > It meets all of your requirements for scientific respectability. > > > Nobody, absolutely nobody would publish in PLoS ONE if they could publish in > Nature or Science, http://libraries.mit.edu/sites/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/mit-faculty-open-access-policy-faq/ > but they can't because those journals recognize junk > science when they see it; and they won't even publish articles from past > Nobel Prize winners unless they have something new and important to say. > >> > PLoS ONE is a legitimate scientific journal. > > > That has never published anything important. How could you possibly know that? >> > The problem with this "incredible claim" meme is that there is no way to >> > objectively measure how incredible a claim is. It's just an >> >> euphemism for the status quo. > > > It is not at all unreasonable to demand a very very high level of proof > before believing a experimental result that if correct would mean that > thousands of experiments performed over the last couple of centuries were > incorrect. Agreed in that case. >> > I invite you to pause for a second and notice how religious you are >> > about Science with a capital S. > > > Wow, calling a guy known for not liking religion religious! Never heard > that one before, at least not before the sixth grade. I don't like religion either and I'm agnostic. I never even mentioned religion in this discussion. >> > Except for consciousness, of course. How do you explain that one? >> (still waiting for your TOE, btw) > > > If I had a TOE I'd be writing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech right now and > not be blabbing on the Everything list; > and a good honest "I don't know" is > a far preferable answer to a question than a bullshit response. Agreed. >>> >> if so then you should accept the following bet: If Science or Nature >>> >> or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive article about life after >>> >> death before April 5 2014 I will give you $1000, if none of them do you >>> >> only >>> >> have to give me $100. Do we have a bet? >> >> >> > Notice that if you make the bet less arbitrary, let's say "any >> > respectable journal with a high impact factor and articles authored by >> > Nobel >> > laureates", I would already have won. > > > Well if you're that confident then this is a simple no risk way for you to > make $1000, hey I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds it's easy money! So are you > willing to put your money where your mouth is? No, I agree with you on the odds. You don't understand what I'm saying at all. Telmo. > John K Clark > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
