Journalistic Minds

Half of Conventional Scientific Papers are Not Read

April 7, 2017

Google “half of scientific papers are not read” to find that half of papers published by the old system are read only by editors, and that is being optimistic. I am among the most conventionally peer reviewed authors in the world, (because I have produced so many papers conventionally) and very rarely does the editor of huge journals read the paper. Alwyn van der Merwe is a man of integrity, and not only read but also edited all the papers of his journals himself. He always employed two or three referees. In astounding contrast to the lack of any readership of conventional papers, ECE and the new system of physics pioneered by AIAS / UPITEC has a vast and permanent readership, and has had since 2003, when the theory was proposed fifteen years ago. In contrast Gerard ‘t Hooft is an editor who set out to destroy a new theory and failed completely.”

Some decades ago, the Sunday Times published a mindless rant by a couple of journalists. One of the leading ‘archival’ journals had just published a compendium of all of the known properties of all (then) known fundamental particles. That issue of the journal was indeed huge. For some reason, these moronic journalists took issue with its size and wanted to know why it had been published, given that nobody would be interested in more than a minute part of it. It is unclear why they were so exercised by the volume; after all, it had not been financed out of public funds. One’s only thought was what on Earth they would have to say about the telephone directory. Perhaps they had not noticed that that was also very bulky, and yet contained very little that would interest a given individual. It seems that similarly moronic journalists have been at it again! Did you imagine, Ron, that every paper in every issue is avidly read by everyone? As for your output, it was largely ‘salami’ (as one of our correspondents put it) and, on top of that, most of the citations were by yourself or colleagues. Salami always passes ‘on the nod’ because one slice is so much like the preceding slice.  Van der Merwe has no integrity! What sort of responsible editor lets though paper after paper, written  by people who are associated with the inventor of a perpetual-motion machine? An inventor who also believes that the Japanese mafia controls the weather and that ‘men-in-black’ are out to kill him using futuristic weapons.  One hopes that Merwe’s assistants were hosed-out of the Augean stables of Foundations of Physics Letters at the same time that he was.  The ‘output’ of the twin sewage outfalls of aias and upitec is unpleasant, but nevertheless goes totally unnoticed in the real world. t’Hooft is a leading theoretician and Nobel prize-winner who thankfully now keeps an eye out for pseudoscience-pushers like yourself and the Public Dick. What theory did he destroy? Oh yes, yours; we had almost forgotten. 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Journalistic Minds”

  1. Interested Observer Says:

    “Google “half of scientific papers are not read” to find that half of papers published by the old system are read only by editors, and that is being optimistic.”

    Ron here repeats an old but pervasive urban myth. Indeed, if you google that sentence you will find hundreds of pages apparently confirming the assertion, but the whole thing’s baloney.

    The origin of the story seems to be an old Smithsonian article which cites a 2007 ‘study’ as its principal source. But it’s nothing of the sort – it was an opinion piece in Physics World into which some editor inserted a half-remembered ‘fact’ from a lecture he or she had attended some years previously. “50% of articles are never read” was a mangled version of the truth, which was that “52% of articles are never *cited*”. That statement in turn came from an article published as long ago as 1980, a very limited study of citations which applied quite specific criteria (I think it was limited to a window of five years from publication) to articles published *in the humanities*.

    In summary, Ron parrots as truth something which is not only demonstrably wrong, but based on dodgy data and decades out of date. Much like his ‘scientific’ output, in fact.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: