Re: Authors "Victorious" in UnCover Copyright Suit

From: Marvin <physchem_at_TELOCITY.COM>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:23:51 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Goodman" <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>
> We should also remember that in addition to "all the amateur stuff
> unleashed on the web with all the best intentions" there is also quite a
> bit of similar stuff in the refereed journal literature. For example,
> polywater, cold fusion and HIV as a non-cause of AIDS have all in
> referred journals (of different publishers).
> David Goodman <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>

Some wrong material gets through the review, and the proportion depends on
the quality of the journal - which is one reason that authors want to be in
the best journals to gain acceptance of their work. The proportion of
nonsense on the Web is much higher than in even a poorly edited journal, and
the two forms of publication shouldn't be equated in this sense.

Two or three times a year, I see discussions on science-oriented newsgroups
on whether glass flows. All the evidence to the contrary doesn't stop the
believers from bringing it up again. That kind of thing doesn't last long
in the refereed literature.

The second two examples Goodman gave were immediately recognized as wrong,
and - as I recall - the first cold fusion article wasn't reviewed, contrary
to the policy of that journal. The polywater flurry ended when the checking
system of science came up with the facts. Pseudoscience of all kinds
doesn't correct itself - it selectively ignores evidence.
Received on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:45:49 GMT