"They note also that they provide a valuable service—peer review"
=> this is the biggest lie the journals keep on selling.
Nbles:"They note also that they provide a valuable service—peer review"
=> this is the biggest lie the journals keep on selling.
That is no lie. The peer review service consists of more than the scientists writing the papers and the peers reviewing them. The journals manage that process, ensuring it's completed. The publishing consists of more than just graphical/typographical layout, including the IT that serves to the Internet.
management of the process and providing a server to download from, personally I think they are overpaid for that. [...] All the new knowledge and creativity comes from the scientists.
I have been on both the author and reviewer side and the influence/contribution of the journal in all cases has been minimal.
but which ALSO allows ANYONE to make observations/critiques
As a non-scientist who loves science, I'm usually kept out by paywalls.
allows ANYONE to make observations/critiques POLITELY and to the point
You are the case in point for why peer review is valuable, and "anyone on the Internet who can submit" is worse than worthless. You have....Kruger_effect. The rest of us appreciate your exclusion from the creation and validation of actual knowledge. I just wish you'd finally recognize that and take your symptoms somewhere else where people are stupid enough to tolerate it.EmceeSquared, your 'attack' can/does apply both ways!
It fails right there. Because then we'd have the likes of you weighing in on papers.Why must you make it about ME again, antialias? Can't you ever leave your personal animosities/prejudices/feuds aside to consider objectively all the possibilities like the scientific method demands?
That this isn't *peer* review should be obvious to anyone.
EmceeSquared, your 'attack' can/does apply both ways!
Stick to being a mad pseudoscientist. Submit your ravings to some other outlet already instead of this one. Just because these comments don't require peer review doesn't mean they should tolerate your insipid, self serving yammering.@MC^2
those who wish science must stand together
until the site actually abides by it's own posting guidelines, it's advocating for pseudoscience
Doing so in these comments with facts and logic, consistent with the scientific method, sets a good example@MC^2
In denial! Seriously, mate, do you even hear yourself when you type/act like that? Consider who is the one lying/incompetent before you start creating your own 'delusions' re what's been going down.EmceeSquared, your 'attack' can/does apply both ways!No it doesn't. My attack is on your fully documented lying and just plain insanity that disqualifies you, in this case from being a peer reviewer. I am not claiming to be qualified to be a peer reviewer, so it's irrelevant that my posts attacking you don't disqualify me as one (though they're factual and logical).
I will next post that list of questiinsWhy you want to post that again? You already posted him about 50 or 49 times. You like getting falsified on that? And the nice peoples at physorg already falsified you for making the same posts over and over and over.
- Why did you *not know* about Plasmoids/Flux Tubes in Sun processes?
- Why did you *not know* about non-Keplerian GR orbitals/Ordinary Matter regimes/distributions in spiral galaxies?
- Why did you *not know* about surface/edge etc Plasmonic Energy effects in Two-slit (and slit-groove and other variants) experiments/results?
- Why did you *not know* about Bicep2 flaws?
I knew all these things/more, EcS/CS-gang, and I tried to point them out for your benefit; so now answer also these further questions for @Forum:
- Why did you keep kneejerking in ignorance instead of checking out objectively what I tried to inform you of, EcS/CS-gang?
- Why call me "liar" when you DIDN'T KNOW sh!t, CS/DS?
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.Because they need to be posted for as often as you/CS-gang keep posting lies and evasions, Ira.I will next post that list of questionsWhy you want to post that again? You already posted him about 50 or 49 times. You like getting falsified on that? And the nice peoples at physorg already falsified you for making the same posts over and over and over.
Keep it up, IraWell alright with me Skippy, if that is what you want.
how many times you/CS-gang have evaded those questionsHow many times? Well I am not sure, you ask those same questions about 51 or 50 times. After the first 30 or 29 everybody got tired of repeating the same answers, so now you just have be "proven falsified all along".
It's what you do, Ira; I just pointed out how it helps me and the truth, that's all. :)Keep it up, IraWell alright with me Skippy, if that is what you want.
What "answers", Ira? They posted NO "answers" to those questions which I posed to highlight who is actually falsified and who is not, Ira. Their only response has been clutter and lies; and more clutter and lies as evasion tactics.how many times you/CS-gang have evaded those questionsWell I am not sure, you ask those same questions about 51 or 50 times. After the first 30 or 29 everybody got tired of repeating the same answers, so now you just have be "proven falsified all along".
What was you in the Parish jail for that the Captain-Skippy...Caps must be talking about HIMSELF and his "criminal" stupidity!...he BOASTED about his stalking/hacking over Internet!...and Cap's been INCOMPETENT even in THAT; making mistaken-identity ERRORS and so telling LIES based on same. Danger!
Their only response has been clutter and lies; and more clutter and lies as evasion tactics.Is that what they are doing? I am wondering how long they have been doing that,,,, when you first put up your questions they would not answer? Because from here it looks like "you have been proven falsified all along".
do you even hear yourself when you type/act like that?
Yes, Ira, and you know that because you are a CS-gang member with especial 'talent' for bot-voting and being an ignoramus extraordinaire! :)Their only response has been clutter and lies; and more clutter and lies as evasion tactics.Is that what they are doing?
I am wondering how long they have been doing that,,,,For as long as they first drew breath, os so it seems, since you/CS-gang have been doing it for (way too many) years now....as the answers to those questions I posted now highlight, whether or not you/CS-gang ever face/answer them. :)
when you first put up your questions they would not answer?You/CS-gang are obviously too scared of what the answers will make too abundantly clear to @Forum, hence your/CS-gang's evasions/clutter posts, Ira. That only helps me and the truth. Ta, Ira/CS-gang. :)
Because from here it looks like "you have been proven falsified all along".Your "here" is BOT-VOTING IGNORAMUS land, Ira. Ta. :)
Now you're lying to yourself as well as @Forum, EcS. Not healthy.you even hear yourself when you type/act like thatOf course I do.
Like most rational people I think of what I say before I post it. I stand by it, after re-reading it. It is completely correct and indeed morally righteous.Who do you think you're kidding, mate? You associate with, encourage BOT-VOTING on a science site, for pity's sake! Have you no shame or sense of right/wrong?....that you would STILL claim to be "completely correct and morally righteous"!? You're far gone to bias/delusion/hypocrisy, EcS. Not healthy.
I have not posted any lies or evasions. I am not in denial of anything. You are a pathological liar and projector.It's YOU evading questions posed to highlight who was correct all along (me) and who not (you/CS-gang).
Nobody's interested in your questions,.Lame rationalizations by in-denial sufferers too scared to face their reality. Not healthy, EcS.
These Luddites are frighteningLOL
@EmceeSquared.Now you're lying to yourself as well as @Forum, EcS. Not healthy.you even hear yourself when you type/act like thatOf course I do.
You associate with, encourage BOT-VOTING on a science site, for pity's sake!
repetition is a functional tool, especially when there are so few advocates for science. it's why you see it used more than anything else by everything from religions to posters above
... everyone sane recognizes its the integrity of its method@MC^2
Science adherents can be persistent too. It's actually easier to repeatedly defend science...yes and no
I say that because it's obvious you cannot BE hearing what you are actually typing/doing, but rather you're 'hearing' what you WANT to 'hear' (like you do with your already obvious 'reading' bias where you 'read' what you WANT to 'read' into a post...which you then proceed to 'strawman' and evade/deny/lie 'like a trooper'! :)Of course I'm not lying that I hear my words when I type before I post. Why would you even say that, ...?Now you're lying to yourself as well as @Forum, EcS. Not healthy.do you even hear yourself when you type/act like thatOf course I do.
You're a jar of snot.EcS, seriously, you've been around that poisonous, unprincipled, juvenile CS-gang of bot-voting ignoramuses too long; it's turned your cranium into a "jar" for, as you put it, "snot". Now blow your mind's "nose", EcS! :)
In denial!You associate with, encourage BOT-VOTING on a science site, for pity's sake!That is simply your delusion...
not everyone sane recognizes the integrity of the method
Anyone refusing that is crazy. Like the faith obsessed.@MC^2
refusal to accept validated science, which really is relevant as it's an indirect refusal to accept the integrity of the scientific method
not all the deniers of AGW are stupid, and some are actually very competent in math or even science.
Sure, but they're still nutsLOL
@MC^2Sure, but they're still nuts [...] "incompletely sane"
that is epic, i am so stealing that phrase!
Nbles
Aug 8, 2017=> this is the biggest lie the journals keep on selling.
Scientists write the papers. Scientists submit the paper in a format ready to use by the journals. Scientists suggest the reviewers. The reviewers are scientists reviewing FOR FREE. Scientists make all of the corrections. The only things journals still do is layout, and even that scientists have to do more and more themselves. So what is the only reason left for publishing in a paid for journal? The standing and impact factor (IP), that's it. Other than that the journals themselves do squat besides grabbing money from research that in a lot of cases was paid for by tax money. The IP's are important for getting tenure/projects/money... so a scientist has to publish in an as high IP journal as possible. I hope the free journals IPs go up, so that the paid journal obligation doesn't hold true anymore.