*Sorry to say this is how science works.*
Gatekeepers of Science Research is expanding exponentially and there are only a fixed number of journals. High publication demands and the low acceptance rate of peer review journals place the journal editors and their reviewers in a powerful position. Journal reviewers have a vital role not only in influencing the journal editor's publication decisions, but also in the very nature and direction of scientific research. For example, hot fusion in preference to cold fusion. Because of their influence in peer review outcomes, journal reviewers are aptly described as the "gatekeepers of science." The peer review process is similar to a kind of social network, however with “gatekeepers”. These are the editors of journals that decide what to include in their publication. Unlike on YouTube or Facebook, in order to get something published, you have to get past them first. However when something is published, the network of how people cite each other has similarities to a network of friends. There are commensal interests involved and it may be necessary to delay an idea to get advantage in the marketplace. As an example in recent months, two rather different controversies have arisen over peer review—one in Britain and one in the United States. Recently, Britain’s Royal Society—the ancient and esteemed national scientific academy—opened a major public inquiry into the ways in which research results are published in the U.K. Sir Patrick Bateson, who is chairing the inquiry, said that peer review “has been criticized for being too secretive, conducted behind closed doors, and assessed by anonymous referees,” and for being used by the scientific establishment “to prevent unorthodox ideas, methods, and views, regardless of their merit, from being made public.” Others worry that the system is not working properly to assure the reliability of studies, particularly when those studies are funded by the government, by corporations, or by interest groups with a political agenda. Such conflicts of interest are of increasing concern, particularly as more science, even academic science, is done under the aegis of companies seeking patents and marketability. Political agenda is also central to the peer review brouhaha in the US where everything is now subject to political ramifications. A researcher should be able to opt out of the process altogether without having their paper peer reviewed at all, but just published straight away. Now this would have to show up in a literature search as “unconfirmed” or something, but if credible researchers then subsequently read it and recommended it, then there is no reason why it shouldn’t achieve the same status as a peer reviewed paper. Self-publication on his website is the root that E. Joe Eck has taken and he should not be penalized for it. On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com > wrote: > Is this stuff published in peer reviewed journals? > Sorry to say this is how science works. Nobody is going to listen to you > unless you have done that. > Giovanni > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Appetite Lost >> >> Reference: >> >> http://www.superconductors.org/rtsc2mkt.htm >> >> *Commercializing the First Room-Temperature Superconductor: A Bleak >> Outlook <http://www.superconductors.org/rtsc2mkt.htm> - 5/05/12* >> >> *Intoxicated with rampant and increasing financial adventurism, the US >> has lost its scientific and engineering vigor. In the US, it seems that the >> interest in pursuing breakthrough innovation in science and engineering is >> dead. Those who await the coming of the next black swan to pull our >> chestnuts out of the fire will be sadly disappointed.* >> >> >> > >
