Talk:Journal of Scientific Exploration

CSI claim

This quote Some observers (such as Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) regard the JSE as a legitimate attempt to explore the frontiers of science is it correct? It would seem that, when reviewing CSI's published information and articles, the SSE and JSE was generally viewed negatively? [1] is an example. Shot info 09:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the evidence for this phrase is that JSE was mentioned on http://www.csicop.org/resources/ . However, it certainly is not there anymore, and what I found on CSI's website is indeed negative. For instance, http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/sheaffer.html is rather damning. Hence I deleted that bit; I'll leave it to others to decide whether more should be done. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Slow edit-warring

As a reminder, if there are disagreements over this article, please remember to discuss controversial issues at the talkpage, don't just battle it out in edit summaries. Thanks, Elonka 16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research

The journal is not indexed in the Web of Science, the standard indexing service for scientific journals, nor is it indexed in PubMed.

We need a source which states that this is significant. We can easily list 1000s of places where JSE is not indexed, but doing so would constitute original research. Essentially, we are creating a criticism by stating that JSE is not indexed here or there and without a reliable source to verfy that such a criticism exists then including it here constitutes a orignal research violation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oprah's Book of the Month Club is not relevant. Whether the journal is indexed is relevant, especially for a fringe journal. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but we need a source to verify this "relevance". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As previously explained, we can WP:IAR. No specific objection has been made to IAR. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is weak here. I am asking for verification to an otherwise original argument being made here. Funny, when I presented unfalsifiable information that Stephen Barret is not Board certified, you were against inclusion. Why the double-standard? Hmmmmmm. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the Stephen Barrett page for discussion. WP:IAR is official policy. No specific reason has been given to ignoring IAR. I also see WP:CON for including the not indexed tidbit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is reason enough to ignore WP:IAR. (Wrap your mind around that!) Anyhow, I have posted the question at NOR/N. Let's wait to hear from some third-party opinions before we continue with anything. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Levine2112: "WP:IAR is reason enough to ignore WP:IAR." And that is exactly what I did, ignore the rules. QuackGuru (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we need a source which says it is relevant. WP:NOR says no such thing. WP:NOR only says that we need a source for the statement that it's not indexed. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If this journal wasn't a "science" journal but a gossip magazine, IOW it didn't attempt to appear scientific, this would be a non-issue, but because its title implies it is a scientific journal, its indexing status is quite relevant, especially since its lack of indexing is a notable exception to the rule. Maybe this isn't a good analogy, but if some currently living person was named John Fitzgerald Kennedy, it would be reasonable to note that he was not related to JFK to avoid confusing people.

The above "gossip magazine" (and sundry other antiscience accusations like "science" in quotes) are mere unfounded assertions - a mere personal belief of yours. And they have NO place in rational discussion about what should or should not be included. If you BELIEVE in such pronouncements then it is up to you to PROVE their veracity before basing any Wikipedia section or article on what is, after all, your mere personal beliefs. The JSE has academic, scientific rigour - the Wikipedia article about it does not.Theatozofeverything (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, at the Quackwatch article you supported inclusion of a similar statement, but one that was quite unreasonable. The statement was to the effect that Quackwatch was not peer-reviewed. The problem is that websites aren't peer-reviewed, nor are they expected to be, yet you attempted to create a negative impression of the website by including such an unreasonable statement as a form of criticism. Now if Quackwatch actually was peer-reviewed like scientific journals are, that would be an exceptional thing, and would be noted.

In the case before us, we have an exceptional situation that should also be noted.

The included sentence is a simple, easily falsifiable statement. Anyone who can show that it is indexed can just remove or modify the statement, using a citation as evidence for justification to do so. Since it is a fringe journal, it would be a feather in its cap to be indexed, and I would support inclusion of a sourced statement to that effect. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any meaningful original research here. II | (t - c) 05:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fyslee and II. The article on the apparently-mothballed Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine mentions indexing (or lack thereof); while it does include a citation (from the publishers) establishing the issues's notability, I think it would still be OK absent that citation.

Also, for the record, QG's IAR rationale is extremely weak and questionable, not to mention self-refuting, as Levine2112 notes. IAR is a corollary to "use common sense", not a mandate to "do what you feel like when it suits you". Never use an argument you wouldn't want used on yourself if the tables were turned. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For any scientific/medical journal, it is very relevant to know if it's indexed and where, its impact factor, etc. This is (or should be) standard and uncontroversial stuff in all journal articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This sentence violates WP:synth and WP:NPOV. Web of Science is only one commercial indexing engine. There are a number of competitors (Cambridge journals online, econlit, emerald, Google scholar, ingenta, Sage publications, Scopus etc.). PubMed only indexes journals with a main focus on medicine, and there are 100s of minor journals (e.g. written in other languages than English) that are not included in PubMed. To mention that JSE is not indexed in PubMed is irrelevant as JSE is not a medical journal. MaxPont (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You do have a point about PubMed, so I'm removing that part. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The OR argument is fallacious. Indexing is basic information, like whether a college is accredited. You've also mixed up indexing with online access (Cambridge journals online etc). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/ You might search for ISSN: 0892-3310 or the title "Journal of Scientific Exploration". A result or lack of result there does not necessarily indicate whether it is proper and WP:DUE to include that result. -- Avanu (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Scope of Research section

The current article has a section entitled "Scope of Research", but it is not about that at all. I have changed this to "Academic reception" which, though not ideal. seems more apt. I have put this brief justification here rather than just doing it. Thoughts?GusFoy (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This section also has the line "Some academics have noted that JSE publishes on anomalous issues, topics often on the fringe of science" which, given the entire content of the article, has a touch of the "No shit, Sherlock!", about it. Will check the link and see if anything more substantive can be said. If not then remove?GusFoy (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourced content being removed

JournalScholar press releases are just that, material released to the press. They are perfectly reliable for the opinion of CSICOP. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the CSICOP piece a press release? Yes or No see WP:RS.--JournalScholar (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read WP:RS. It does not even mention press releases. If it is a press release or not is completely irrelevant; it is perfectly reliable for the opinion of CSICOP. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleting parts of an article after they have been restored is disruptive and contrary to WP:BURDEN; you need to give people time to improve it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:BURDEN? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You have failed to provide a verifiable reliable source for the information you kept reverting.--JournalScholar (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not disruptive to remove any material that cannot be verified by a reliable source, see WP:V and WP:RS. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wikilaywering, you are quoting policies without reading them. It does not say anything of the sort in WP:V or WP:RS. Specifically it says in WP:V: "Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." By not giving people adequate time you are being disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If the source exists you should be able to cite it. I cite sources for EVERYTHING I add to Wikipedia, try it sometime.--JournalScholar (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't strip all unsourced content out of articles, because of WP:PRESERVE we aim to fix it: "requesting a citation by adding the tag". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Contentious material must be verifiable from a reliable source, see WP:V and WP:RS. --JournalScholar (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI before I remove unsourced claims I perform searches to see if it can be verified so when I remove the information it is highly unlikely a reliable source exists to support the claim.--JournalScholar (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You removed information with a source and are unable to support why with any policy based argument. You have been asked to give other editors time to find sources for the other content, this is common practice. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Contentious material can be immediately removed if it is unverifiable from a reliable source.--JournalScholar (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Show me the wikipedia policy that states that self-published sources (press releases) WP:SPS can be used about a third party. --JournalScholar (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

JournalScholar (talk · contribs) seems to be someone with a very clear COI on the topic, and clearly aims to whitewash the article of any and all criticism, or anything remotly construed as criticism. Things like this is clearly not contentious material, nor is remotely close to being WP:OR. Same for this, and many many other edits made on the article.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, they are quoting the policies without even reading them. I don't see why material on CSICOP would be considered self-published. They have editorial oversight. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor

Slim, Why are you inserting a second mention of the editor? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I would consider comparable articles: Neuroquantology, Rejuvenation Research. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)