Contribution by Stephen Crothers

April 9, 2017

Good to hear from you, this will be a very interesting chapter as usual! In March 2017 the first volume, “The Principles of ECE” was read open access at the rate of 9,514 times a year off combined sites, so your chapter for that volume was also read at that rate. In contrast, half of scientific papers published conventionally are not read at all. This puts the huge impact of your work in context. Attempts to censor your work, and the personal abuse to which you have been subjected, have failed completely and rebounded on the Old Guard.”

In spite of your avid reading of our blog, Ron, you seem to have overlooked some of our correspondence. As you have repeated that lie again above, here is the information provided by our reader, ‘Interested Observer’,

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 In summary, Ron parrots as truth something which is not only demonstrably wrong, but based on dodgy data and decades out of date.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.

Can that be true, Ron, do you in fact parrot baloney?


One Response to “Supplementary”

  1. Harry Hab Says:

    Any bearing on the matter at hand is purely coincidental!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: