1
Just Chat! / When is there ever a need for censorship
« on: 20/12/2009 00:50:08 »
The best proof of a scientific claim is when published in a peer reviewed publication with others reproducing the claim. Until then, anything in this forum can be "nice" and "fun" and "provocative", but there's no proving anything here.
I can't argue with this DiscoverDave. The object here is to point out that submission for publiction in a reviewed journal first requires that review. Historically this has been denied us notwitstanding repeated submissions. My hope is to discuss the justification for this, on the one hand, and to alert mainstream and the public to this fact. It falls under censorship. The review process, as I understand it, is to determine the merits of those submissions, the experimental evidence or the hypothesis or both as it relates to the promotion of new and significant insights into science. It apparently may require a certain dialogue between the editor and the authors as go between for the reviewers who remain anonymous. If arguments need clarification then this is how it's done prior to publication.
Here's the thing. We are trying again. But this time we've gone to some considerable trouble to alert the public to the existence of that paper and it's submission. The hope is that it won't be 'swept under the carpet' with the ease and convenience that was applied to date.