Talk:Journal of Scientific Exploration/Archive 1

Archive 1

Category

I added Category:Pseudoscience because a quick check shows this journal seems to frequently publish papers on topics like anomalous cognition (apparently ESP) which appear to constitute classic pseudoscience.---CH 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It also publishes papers that conclude that various things are saucer shaped extraterrestial spaceships! (Fall 2003, I believe) --Philosophus ^T 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the pseudoscience category due to the following reasons:

• This is a magazine not a discipline
• Pseudoscience is a derogatory, non-NPOV term and cannot be used for categorization
• The magazine cannot be said to practice pseudoscience just because it publishes on topics outside of mainstream science

One of the reasons being applicable and correct is sufficient support for the removal - I have cited three. Aquirata 19:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the pseudoscience category because that is just what it is after reading its website and this self-contradicting article. asside: Aquirata is just wrong and claims being a student of Astrology, the most common pseudoscience.

I also added the "paranormal magazines" category

pseudoscience is a LARGE category, Pseudoscience is a good article and pseudoscience is JUST NOT SCIENCE.

outside of mainstream science = pseudoscience. --Ollj 20:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

POV Description of Editorial Board?

"The current (March 2006) editorial board is composed of persons holding faculty positions at various respectable universities and other institutions of mainstream science." Is this a case of POV, also is it even true? --TrollHistorian 05:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is highly misleading. ---CH 14:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed this by Googling the Editorial Board. Unless I missed someone, they are exclusively persons who have published on various paranormal topics, often in the JSE itself!

Let me stress that I would strongly argue against "red linking" this list, since I do not feel that all the world's academics are automatically "notable". ---CH 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As a member of the editorial board, I object. I have never published an article favorable towards any fringe topic. I have published a small number of papers in the journal that are quite critical of claims of the paranormal, and pointed specifically to methodological and statistical defects of specific claims of the paranormal made in the journal.

There are some, perhaps a majority, of members of the board who fall into the category you claim. But it is not true that the editorial board consists exclusively of such individuals (I am an exception, and I believe that there are others who are also exceptions). Unless you can document this claim, it should be withdrawn.

The same is true of the term entirely with regard to point (2), the contents. The papers that I have published there have argued against such claims made by other papers in the journal. They are counterexamples to your use of the term entirely.

You can't tell what a paper says if you only read the title.

This part of the article at least is poorly researched. It appears to be an example of original research, poorly executed, and may violate Wikipedia policy.Bill Jefferys 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New version

I have reverted the new version by 69.107.150.126 (talk · contribs) (the pltn13.pacbell.net domain, which has recently been used by Haisch (talk · contribs), IRL Bernard Haisch, a past editor of JSE) and ChipChat (talk · contribs), apparently an officer of JSE, to my version. I am about address the concerns raised by Haisch in a message in my user talk page. I think this is better than edits which themselves raise concerns about possible conflicts of interest. ---CH 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Dearborn, MI, ARIN does give a mailing address in Dearborn, MI; check it out! ---CH 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized the material and responded to concerns implicit in the pltn13.pacbell.net anon edits, but it would be a disservice to our readers not to include some information about possible bias on the part of the current board of editors! However, I am willing to discuss how to phrase this information. ---CH 00:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Statements about the Board Removed

Let's take some examples. Sturrock was awarded the Arctowski prize from the National Academy of Sciences, the Hale Prize from the American Astronomical Society, the Space Sciences Award from the American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics for his research in astrophysics. Terzian was chair of the Astronomy Department at Cornell with hundreds of [papers in astrophysics]. Richard Henry is a well-respected full professor at Johns Hopkins who is Principal Investigator of a NASA mission ([brief CV]). Dave Pieri is a JPL scientist who thinks the whole face on Mars claim is absurd (personal comm.) Please have a civil discussion with me before you post such NPOV-violating nonsense. Let's stick to the facts. Haisch (talk · contribs)

Additional Corrections

This is a much more fair presentation, but some issues remain which I think can be respectfully resolved. For example, the characterization of the JSE Board is not accurate. Check the credentials of JSE Board member Yervant Terzian for example, or Richard Henry. Terzian was chairman of the astronomy department at Cornell, in effect Carl Sagan's boss, and has stellar credentials (pun intended, but true). He has an excellent reputation as a leader in astrophysics as does Richard Henry, a professor at Johns Hopkins. We can discuss the Board in more detail but the characterization of that you gave is just not accurate.

The terminology we use in our published papers is "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis". Note also that I have always claimed that this may result in propulsion someday... which could be centuries. I don't believe I have ever made any claims about this being involved in UFO propulsion, since I have no idea what that phenomenon may be.

You also persist in letting negative digs and commentary slip in. Please stick to the facts.

As for the experiment, I am being cautious until funding actually arrives. In April a collaborator of mine got an intent-to-fund letter for a zero-point energy experiment from the Navy to his University. I will be more specific when the contract and funding are in place. Haisch 9:36, June 8, 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of Terzian's academic position. I think you know that he is not regarded by his colleagues simply as a "mainstream astrophysicist" but is somewhat notorious for some nonmainstream views and publications (see below). I think you may have missed the point about that list: the problem was that previous versions entirely overlooked the fact that all the editorial board members have apparently themselves published on paranormal topics, often in the JSE itself, which does tend to suggest that the referee pool consists of persons with similar interests. This does suggest that if more mainstream scientists served as referees, many JSE papers might not be published. ---CH 14:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten a new and shorter version which I think makes both the points desired by Haisch (talk · contribs) and the ones which I feel are neccessary to satisfy WP:NPOV. ---CH 14:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from previous version

According to the JSE website, the editorial board is currently composed of persons holding faculty positions at various respectable universities and other institutions of mainstream science. However, a closer look suggests that the current board consists exclusively of academics who have a reputation for publishing in fringe science topics:

1. Mikel Aickin, (Ctr. for Health Res., Kaiser Permanente, in Portland, OR) publishes on paranormal topics
2. Rémy Chauvin (Sorbonne), ditto
3. Olivier Costa de Beauregard (University of Paris), ditto
4. Steven J. Dick (United States Naval Observatory), ditto
5. Peter Fenwick (Institute of Psychiatry, London) publishes on life after death
6. Alan Gauld (Dept. of Psychology, University of Nottingham) has been described as a parapsychologist (at JSE)
7. Richard C. Henry (Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University) publishes on UFOs and other paranormal topics,
8. Robert G. Jahn (School of Engineering, Princeton University) publishes on psychokinesis; see also Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR)
9. W. H. Jefferys, (Astronomy, University of Texas) publishes on "paranormal dreaming"
10. Wayne B. Jonas, (National Institutes of Health) publishes on "magical thinking" and homeopathy
11. Michael Levin, (Cell Biology Dept., Harvard Medical School) publishes on Psionics and "paranormal information transfer"
12. David Pieri (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) publishes on the so-called Face on Mars
13. Ian B. Stevenson (Health Science Center, University of Virginia) published on reincarnation and is the author of book on paranormal
14. Peter A. Sturrock (Ctr. for Space Science & Astrophysics, Stanford University) publishes on UFOs
15. Yervant Terzian (Astronomy, Cornell University) publishes on UFOs
16. N. C. Wickramasinghe (University College Cardiff) publishes on a paranormal "plasma vortex"; see also plasma cosmology and Fred Hoyle

Indeed, many of these persons have published on paranormal or fringe science topics in the JSE itself. One of the founders of the JSE appears to be Bernard Haisch, who has made statements which appear to describe a UFO conspiracy theory.

Examining the contents of random issues suggests that JSE typically publishes articles seeking to present alleged "scientific evidence" for the existence of UFOs, psionics, psychokinesis, precognition, life after death, and various other paranormal notions, as well as Bigfoot and other cryptids, the Face on Mars and UFO conspiracy theories. (See the external links below for tables of content for all or most issues of the JSE.) Furthermore, the fact that the editorial board appears to be composed exclusively of paranormal researchers suggests that the pool of referees for this journal has a similar composition.

These facts suggest that JSE should not be regarded as a journal which presents mainstream scientific research.

(Moved for future reference as needed by CH 14:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

To repeat something I said in earlier comment: I would strongly deprecate any assumption that every individual on this list must be sufficiently notable to merit a biography in a general encyclopedia such as the WP, simply because they have been mentioned in this discussion or serve on the editorial board of some (questionable) journal. ---CH 14:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is Bill Jefferys talking. I have never published any article on paranormal dreaming. I have published several articles in JSE that are highly critical of the PEAR lab and their work, and which in my opinion thoroughly refute certain of thier experiments and their use of statistics. These are the only articles that I have ever published on any fringe subject, and they were in no way favorable to the subjects I was criticising. (although I have also had some letters in Skeptical Inquirer, which were similarly critical of fringe "science"). I have never published any articles or letters that looked favorably on fringe "science".

I can only guess that the person who inserted this material about me in this article never bothered to read the articles and letters that I have written, because their criticism of the fringe science is very clear. Bill Jefferys 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, that editor (not neccessarily person ;-/ as per my user page) was me. Thanks for the correction and I apologize for any misrepresentation. I tried to quickly check a number of persons using Google and must have goofed in your case. By the way, it is best not to intercalate your comments with those of other people since this tends to confuse who said what in the talk page. That is why I moved your comment down here. Also, some of Wikipedians including me try to use tabs (initial colon) to distinguish visually between comments by different editors within a given section of a given tlak page. A simple trick but I find it very helpful.---CH 21:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (evidently trying to maintain its own crank credentials)

I need a break from this stuff, but will take a look sometime in the next few weeks. I agree that it is best if only Wikipedians who are not directly involved in JSE edit this article, to avoid possible conflicts of interest. ---CH 06:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments (this is just what I have found so far):

Mikel Aickin publishes a regular column in JSE on statistics; they are standard discussions of statistics and don't claim to support anything paranormal. I refereed one article by Mikel in JSE; It was also just an article on statistical technique, and not in favor of anything "paranormal".

Richard Henry published two book reviews in JSE, neither one "for" or "against" UFOs as a real phenomenon. He suggests that it may be useful to research UFO phenomena further, without claiming that they are "real." It seems to me that he is interested in finding out why we have these UFO reports. He has an additional article in JSE on UFOs, which is not available online, so I cannot evaluate it. He has published nearly 200 articles on topics that cannot be in any way construed as "fringe".

I see no evidence that he has "published on other paranormal topics." Evidence, please.

David Pieri's articles on the "Face on Mars" were skeptical about it. This does not suggest that he favors "fringe science."

Our Wiki editor(s) are arguing illegitimately that because someone publishes about a subject, s/he is arguing in favor of that subject. This is fallacious. It also seems to be original research. And, it seems to be poorly carried out. Bill Jefferys 02:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration (moved from User talk:Hillman)

The article as currently written claims:

However, critics point to the facts that

1. the editorial board is apparently composed entirely of academics who have themselves published papers advocated various fringe science topics, often in JSE itself, thus suggesting that the peers who review for JSE may not be truly representative of contemporary mainstream science,
2. the contents of JSE (available on-line) seem to comprise entirely papers claiming to present "scientific evidence" for a great variety of paranormal and fringe science topics, including UFOs, psionics, psychokinesis, precognition, life after death, and various other paranormal notions, as well as Bigfoot and other cryptids, the Face on Mars and UFO conspiracy theories.

These claims are wrong, and there are other defects in the article as written. I detail these problems below.

1. The editorial board is not composed entirely of academics who have "published papers advocated [sic] various fringe science topics". I am a member of the editorial board, and I have never published such a paper. Therefore, I am a counterexample. On the contrary, I have published a number of articles challenging such claims. Some of them can be found at my website (click on the link to "Selected Papers". Others can be found at [1], [2], and [3]. In addition to these, at least one letter of mine was published in Skeptical Inquirer (some years ago, not online) that criticized Creationist Walter T. Brown. Therefore, this claim is false.
2. The contents of JSE do not comprise entirely papers claiming to present "scientific evidence" for a great variety of paranormal and fringe science topics. A number of papers published in JSE, including papers and letters by myself, strongly criticize such claims; others, including some by myself, are book reviews of standard books (e.g., several books on Bayesian statistics done by myself), which do not even mention such topics. Mikel Aicken has written a series of articles on statistics which make no mention of such topics. Therefore, this claim is false.
3. The editor who wrote this claims that the two points are "facts." They are not facts, since they are false.
4. Furthermore, it appears that there are no citations that actually support the claims made. A core principle of Wikipedia is that there shall be no original research, and that all claims shall be verifiable. In particular, sources should be cited. It is not sufficient to go out and do a web search on your own hook, and then write an article based on this. This counts as original research, and is disallowed. The editor wrote "critics point to the facts that"... Who are these critics? Where are the citations that show what they wrote? Or is there one critic, the author of the article, who is expressing a personal opinion based solely on original research? It is impossible to tell as the article is written, since no citations are provided to give this information.
5. Finally, in my opinion, the article as currently written violates the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy. This is not a neutral article. Not only does it make claims that are false, but it also makes them in a biased manner.

I suggest that some editor, not myself (because I am one of the targets of the misinformation in this article and am therefore not an appropriate editor of the article) correct all of these commissions and omissions. This means, (1) removing the false statements and replacing them with correct statements that are both verifiable and cited, and not the result of mere "original research." (2) Using language that is neutral and not biased.

I will be unavalable (on travel) for the next several days, and will respond to any comments on this posting when I return.

Thank you for listening. Bill Jefferys 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed entirely to mostly. I have repeated asked Haisch (talk · contribs) to take a break and I ask you the same thing. I am not unwilling to take a second look at this but I'd like to do some other stuff here at WP for a few weeks. I think the current version will do until then. Fair enough? ---CH 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The current version is entirely inadequate. It is biased, it is point of view, and the major points made are uncited. It thus violates several core Wikipedia polices. I think that the section titled "A scientific journal?" should be removed and worked on in the talk page until a version that conforms to Wikipedia policies can be agreed upon. Bill Jefferys 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

POV description of journal contents

This phrase is extremely POV: mostly comprise papers claiming to present '"scientific evidence"' If I remove the three rhetorical tricks from the phrase, it would read like so: "mostly comprise papers presenting evidence."

First trick: insinuating that the authors aren't actually presenting evidence, but are only "claiming" to do so. Second trick: insinuating that the evidence is questionable by use of quotation marks. Third trick: using the term "scientific" to insinuate that the papers are dishonest attempts to 'appear' scientific.

Are you a newcomer to WP? You need to realize that this sort of weasely stuff is not appropriate here. Instead, state things clearly and honestly. If you meant to say that the evidence is questionable, say "the evidence is questionable" and then say why. If you're describing an issue of possible JSE bias, then avoid insinuating anything! Instead say "The JSE board may possibly be biased," and then say why. --Wjbeaty 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Whom are you addressing, Wjbeaty, Haisch (talk · contribs) or Hillman (talk · contribs)? Haisch is still a WP newbie; I have 10⁴ edits since May of last year :-/ as you can see from my contribs.---CH 07:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The current version looks OK to me, and you were the last editor, so have we resolved this? I guess we'll have to wait for Bill Jefferys to get back but I think his comments above refer to a much earlier version; if so, he might also be willing to live with the current version.---CH 07:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to believe how biased this article is. The section 'A scientific journal?' should either be deleted outright or drastically rephrased. The title is already POV, let alone the content. The section was obviously mainly written by somebody opposing the mission of JSE. Where is content describing the journal itself? After a very short introduction we immediately question its existence and spend most of the page with that?

The criticisms are without base in my opinion:

• Point 1 questions the journal because people on the editorial board publish papers on fringe science. Pardon me? Just because somebody talks about fringe science, he suddenly becomes a non-scientist? "A scientist is an expert in at least one area of science who uses the scientific method to do research." Which member of the editorial board doesn't fit this description?
• Point 2 questions the contents of the paper because the articles deal with paranormal or fringe science topics. From the JSE mission statement: "The international Journal of Scientific Exploration was established in 1987 to provide a professional forum for the presentation, scrutiny and criticism of scientific research on topics outside the established disciplines of mainstream science." What is in this statement that contradicts the definition of a 'scientific journal'? As per Wikipedia, "a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research. Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer-reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity."

• The JSE is a periodical publication;
• its mission is to further science by exploring fringe topics, some of which will become accepted scientific disciplines in the future (e.g. Wegener's continental drift);
• it reports new research;
• the articles are peer-reviewed ("a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of one or more others who are experts in the field");
• standards are being upheld (from JSE: "All topics may be considered for the Journal; however, the investigations must conform to criteria of academic excellence");
• scientific validity is addressed by its already quoted mission statement.

In summary, there is a serious problem with this article:

• Huge imbalance in favour of criticism
• The criticisms themselves are highly POV and simply false

I hope these issues can be remedied soon. Aquirata 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the 'A scientific journal' section from the article here as per the supporting comment by Bill Jefferys 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC), so we can work on this until it becomes acceptable. Aquirata 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(The following text was moved from the article for discussion)

A scientific journal?

Some regard the Journal as a legitimate attempt to explore the frontiers of science, noting that

1. the editorial board is mostly composed of academics holding posts at various mainstream institutions,
2. JSE policy states that the journal does not advocate any of the fringe science topics discussed in papers published in the journal,
3. papers submitted to JSE are accepted only after passing a process of peer review.

However, critics point to the facts that

1. the editorial board is apparently composed mostly of academics who have themselves published papers advocated various fringe science topics, often in JSE itself, thus suggesting that the peers who review for JSE may not be truly representative of contemporary mainstream science,
2. the contents of JSE (available on-line) seem to mostly comprise papers presenting evidence for a great variety of paranormal and fringe science topics, including UFOs, psionics, psychokinesis, precognition, life after death, and various other paranormal notions, as well as Bigfoot and other cryptids, the Face on Mars and UFO conspiracy theories.

Contains many papers...

The problem with the statement "The journal contains many papers on topics that are considered to be pseudoscience or paranormal by the mainstream scientific community, including papers that support these ideas" and then the reference to the list of articles is that there is a disconnect. I agree that many of the papers on the topics would be considered to be pseudoscience or paranormal by the mainstream scientific community, but it isn't sufficient merely to cite a table of contents to show that the mainstream scientific community, however defined, actually considers these papers to be on those topics. Something needs to be cited that shows that this is actually what the mainstream scientific community thinks. My opinion is that it is correct. Yours may also be that it is correct. But, our opinions are not sufficient to establish this for an article in a reputable encyclopedia. Bill Jefferys 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we need to cite a source for this. Paul August ☎ 01:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is so obvious that no one is going to bother to create a verifiable reference stating it specifically for this journal. The contents of the journal are obvious, especially in cases of UFOs and paranormal phenomena, and the archives are suitable reference for this. Fringe science vs. pseudoscience is a bit more difficult, but it should not be too hard to find sources labelling the topics as pseudoscience. It should be absurdly easy to find numerous references that say that paranormal phenomena and UFOs are viewed with suspicion. Why don't you add {fact}, instead of removing the statement? Removing the statement causes the article to then violate NPOV and take an entirely sympathetic view. --Philosophus ^T 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) The journal contains articles on UFOs, reincarnation, astrology, cryptozoology, "consciousness-related physical anomalies", and an article that has "paranormal" in the title (in the last volume). I don't think we need to cite a source for it; it is a summary of the contents of the journal, and we don't cite a source for the summary of the plot of a book like War and Peace. The second half is that these topics are considered pseudoscience or paranormal. I think that is obvious from our own articles on them.

However, I realize that my formulation was ill-chosen. I did not want to imply that the articles themselves were pseudoscience, only that the topics are pseudoscience. I only wanted to fill what "topics outside the established disciplines of mainstream science" means, because that is not very clear to me. I tried to choose a better phrase, but Philosphus' edited the article before I would think up something I was satisfied with. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata, could you please explain why a citation is needed for "often viewed with suspicion"? Why are the linked Wikipedia articles not sufficient evidence? Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Because this is a POV opinion which must be sourced. If this view can be supported by one of the articles, then a reference must be made to that statement within the article. But I'd be a lot happier with an external source because the WP articles are constantly changing, so one day the statement may be there, the other day it may not. Aquirata 12:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not an opinion. It is, as stated before, a widely known and obvious fact regarding the mainstream scientific community, and as such does not really require a source anyway. The sentence only states that the journal contains articles on certain topics (obvious from referenced archives), and that these topics are viewed with suspicion by the mainstream scientific community (obvious and well known). Are you really claiming that a rational, educated person would believe that these subjects are not viewed with suspicion by the mainstream scientific community? --Philosophus ^T 12:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to head off anyone telling me to read WP:V - I have read it many times. I have discussed it at length on numerous occasions in the context of several disputed articles, including this specific instance, with a variety of editors, on IRC and discussion pages. WP:V should not be taken to mean that obvious things need a reference, nor should it mean that an article should remove obvious criticisms due to lack of explicit and verifiable sources. Otherwise, for example, hardly any of the criticism on Time Cube or Gene Ray would be allowed. --Philosophus ^T 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of including this statement? To discredit the magazine? The main strength of the NPOV-V-OR core is that this sort of slant can be avoided. Or do you want to include a statement on Nature (journal) (or any other respectable scientific magazine) to the effect that 'the journal opposes progress because it often refuses to publish articles on the leading edge of scientific research'? Aquirata 13:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way Philosophus, you should make up your mind whether cite is needed or not. Aquirata 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a good example of an opinion. Note the "opposes progress" and "leading edge of scientific research". In this case, all the statement is saying is that there are many topics covered in the journal which are viewed with suspicion by the scientific community. Have you thought about the question I asked in my last comment? The point of the statement is to show that the journal covers controversial areas which other journals do not. It is not a criticism. It is not saying that the journal itself is of dubious value. As for a citation, I believe that the archive citation is certainly needed, but the other citation is not. That does not mean I oppose it being there; I just don't think it has to be there. --Philosophus ^T 13:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But that opinion (about scientific journals) could be sourced.

I'm not arguing that the statement in the article is incorrect. But is it relevant? Does it carry undue weight? Saying that the journal covers controversial areas is much different from the journal contains many papers on topics that are often regarded as scientifically dubious. Including the term scientifically dubious in the sentence implies that the journal is dubious. This is weasel-wording. The entire sentence is badly worded, the counterpoint is not made well, and the argument is slanted. In other words, it's POV. Changing it to your paraphrase would improve it a lot. Aquirata 13:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Seeing as almost all content has been removed, apart from a brief description of the publication, what is the rational for a NPOV tag? Jefffire 12:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the tag, but it could be argued that it is not NPOV precisely because almost all content is removed and only the journal's own mission statement and title remain, which gives it the appearance of a scientific journal.

However, I don't know why the stub tag is there. I haven't seen anything which suggests that this journal is important or notable in some way; two paragraphs seem sufficient to describe it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It might stay that way forever, but it is currently a stub. It could always use more information, so long as it doesn't become convoluted or too long. --Philosophus ^T 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A stub is an article that obviously misses some information. It's not an article that could use some more information (99.99% of the article could do that). However, it's not at all important whether the article has a stub tag or not, so let's just keep it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Structure

Philosophus, why do you oppose structure in this article? And why do you revert my improvements without talk? This is complete disregard for your fellow editor, which I'm sure violates some policy or guideline. Aquirata 13:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR, one of the most important parts of Wikipedia. I am reverting the structure changes because I believe they degrade the article. For one, they make the article into an obviously unfinished draft, which is not professional. Placeholder sections shouldn't be used. In addition, as I have stated before, not only does the criticism section cause the sentence in question to be obscured, it is not a criticism in the first place. --Philosophus ^T 13:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they were not improvements. One-line sections are bad style, empty sections are terrible. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus' points:

• WP:IAR: which doesn't encourage incivility in editing, does it?
• an obviously unfinished draft: which is a stub. What's the problem?
• Placeholder sections shouldn't be used: Who says? I recall the opposite, which says something along the lines of not worrying about imperfections as long as continuous improvement is made.
• sentence in question to be obscured: Perhaps it has undue weight now and the structure only highlighted it?

Looks to me you're adamant on giving this sentence as high a priority as possible. Why? Aquirata 14:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Jitse: The solution is simple: spend some real effort on filling the sections. Aquirata 14:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fringe science and pseudoscience are very loaded terms, hence inappropriate. Let's stick to facts, not judgments and name-calling, which is what this is. Haisch 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already made too many reversions today, but these changes have significantly degraded the article. We had a well sourced statement, which has now been replaced with a highly sympathetic statement that has no sources. The sentence did not claim that the journal or even the papers promoted fringe science or pseudoscience, only that some of the papers dealt with topics considered to fall under those terms. --Philosophus ^T 21:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Haisch's version had OR, so I've changed the version back to Paul's. The effort is appreciated, but we need to avoid beating around the bush. Jefffire 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh>... Aquirata 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added some sourcing for the NPOV description. The OR charges are completely unfounded. Aquirata 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of all the objections that could be made to the change, OR isn't one of them. --Philosophus ^T 08:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Without citations, it could well have been OR. Now it is just POV. Jefffire 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Journal policy

As far as I can see, the sentences

"Journal policy is that its acceptance or rejection of articles should be on the basis of peer review. The policy of the magazine is to maintain a critical view by presenting both sides of an argument so as not to advocate for or against any of the published topics."

are not supported by the given reference. On peer review, the instructions only state "Manuscripts will be sent to one or more referees at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief." I don't know where the second sentance comes from. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote it from something like "article are accepted or rejected on the basis of peer review". I assumed that it was properly sourced, so I tried to make it more NPOV. It appears that it is OR however, so it will need to be removed. Jefffire 09:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the reference to the second statement. What's the problem with the first one? Aquirata 10:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

After your "correction", the reference points to http://www.hist.unt.edu/web_resources/anth_journal.htm . The only thing there about the journal is the phrase "a professional forum for the presentation, scrutiny and criticism of scientific research on topics outside the established disciplines of science". I first thought that you made a simple mistake, but I'm finding it hard to maintain this belief. I've reverted everything. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith by reverting several hours of work. Please explain why the sentences are problematical. Aquirata 11:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the "peer review" sentence to more accurately conform to the given cite. As for the "presenting both sides" sentence I've removed the given cite, since it doesn't support the assertion, and added a "citation need" tag. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul, how was the U of N Texas reference not supportive of the sentence? The site says (about JSE): "a professional forum for the presentation, scrutiny and criticism of scientific research on topics outside the established disciplines of science." Isn't presentation, scrutiny and criticism equivalent to maintaining a critical view, presenting both sides of an argument and not advocating for or against any of the published topics? Aquirata 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps my writing "doesn't support", was an over statement. The University of North Texas quote: "a professional forum for the presentation, scrutiny and criticism of scientific research on topics outside the established disciplines of science." is the identical language found here, which we already quote in the first paragraph, so one wonders whether this is an independent assessment of the Journal. In any case our sentence says more than can be justified by that quote. Paul August ☎ 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't notice that the two wordings were identical. In that case, the UNT ref cannot be used as an independent source. Aquirata 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Aquirata has done an outstanding job, and I think the current version is a significant improvement over earlier versions. As a member of the editorial board of JSE I know from personal experience that the journal does indeed present both sides (dependent of course on someone writing an article that takes the other side). I have personally published several articles and letters critical of other articles in the journal. In one case when I was referee, I allowed an article to be published, but on condition that it be followed by my critical rebuttal. It is not uncommon for this to happen. I have also personally rejected articles that did not meet standards.

I'll be gone for a week. See you then. Bill Jefferys 16:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill, for the kind words. Perhaps you could add the above description to the SSE website in some form, so we can reference it in the article. Aquirata 20:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I received the following from B. Haisch; perhaps someone can work this into the article to replace the sentence "The policy of this magazine..."

Well, it was never the policy to present both sides on _every_ issue, rather to be open to articles both pro and con on any topic and to publish rebuttals and critical referee reports as the circumstances arise. If the "Aims and Scope" and "Refereeing" from the "Instructions to Authors" page could be footnoted, a modified claim of that sort could be supported by citing those.

See you in a week! Bill Jefferys 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure my statement above is not misinterpreted, it means that JSE did not go out and solicit a con article on a given topic whenever a pro article was submitted and vice versa. But JSE was open to both sides of every issue. And by the way, I knew this would be a thankless job because we would be attacked by the scoffers, even though presenting such a "devil's advocate" forum is healthy for science. In my opinion 1 real discovery is worth the price of 99 deadends.Haisch 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added an example ref to the statement in question so far - will work on a reword later. Aquirata 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the following quote will be useful in resolving the "positioning" of the JSE relative to "mainstream science".

"JSE is unique in its positioning between scholarly publications for mainstream professionals and the broad spectrum of real and virtual publications challenging conventional paradigms or simply embracing alternative beliefs unquestioningly. It stands head and shoulders above the latter, and by rights should have a place of honor among the former as a source of new ideas." - B. Haisch and M. Sims "Retrospective on the JSE" Journal of Scientific Exploration page 25 Volume 18, number 1 2004

ChipChat 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've used this and the quote below in support of rephrasing the first sentence of the second paragraph:

"As Sturrock writes:

"'Scholarly publications are essential for the process of building consensus. For these reasons, it was clear to the Committee that real progress in the study of anomalies requires the publication of a new journal designed specifically for that purpose.'

"The establishment of a new peer-reviewed journal following the customs and standards of academic journals but designed specifically for the scholarly study of anomalies became the principal goal."

Aquirata 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Anomalies research

The journal uses the terms "study of anomalies", "pursuit of anomalies", "anomalies research" and "anomalies topics" interchangeably in [4]. The expression "physics research" is used in a similar vein. I wanted to get the word "anomalies" in the article because it seems an apt description of the topics the journal deals with. What's your suggestion? Aquirata 22:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is: "The Journal publishes scholarly papers on rarely studied [anomalies] research topics, such as alternative medicine, astrology, consciousness, paranormal phenomena, reincarnation and UFOs." I'm not that fond of the word anomalies, because it is not very clear to me what it means. I'd say that the list of topics that follows gives a sufficient and easier to understand explanation of the scope of the journal. Futhermore, I don't see why the word "research" is included. Finally, if you take a look in the Philosophy section of a library, I think you'll see that topics like consciousness are studied quite intensively. Hence, I cut out all these words, leaving "… scholarly papers on topics such as …". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We can wait for feedback from others on this. The word "consciousness" can be taken out or replaced by a more 'fringe' term if you like. Either way I think the sentence reads fine now. Aquirata 01:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

More on 'anomalies' by the current Editor-in-Chief:

"When Is a Surprise an Anomaly?

"By Henry H. Bauer

"It’s an anomaly when the surprise is not only unexpected, which it is by definition, but when it also somehow contradicts well established beliefs. I may be surprised when 50 people suddenly swarm into my home for a surprise birthday-party, but it doesn’t inflict damage to my view of what are normal happenings. However, if I were surprised to find myself being examined by strange beings after being abducted in a UFO, that would be an anomalous surprise: my world-view would be shaken by it."

[5]

Aquirata 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Editors-in-Chief

Are we sure that Haisch was succeeded by Bauer, with no other Editor-in-Chief in between? As far as I can see, none of the references cited state this. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry Bauer directly succeeded me. Haisch 04:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Students beware

I extensively rewrote the 25 June 2006 version of this article, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. Given the personal involvement of Haisch (talk · contribs) in the subject of this article, I have reason to believe that the present and no doubt at least some future versions of this article present slanted information, and possibly even misinformation. Beware also of external links to other websites which may do likewise.

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 01:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to Bad

The main article has reverted to misinformation about members of the editorial board. In particular, it now repeats the falsehood that I have published on "paranormal dreaming". I have never published on any such topic, nor have I ever published any article favorable to any topic that could be considered "fringe science." All of this is discussed above.

There was a revision some time ago that was basically correct. This one has gone from a reasonable description of JSE back to one that is POV and thus violates WikiPedia policy.

I have deleted the section about the editorial board, since it is replete with misinformation.Bill Jefferys 18:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you are more intimately familiar with SSE/JSE, could you indicate which article version that you consider most most accurate? Any add'l discussion would be most welcome. This article has been affected by critical editors following in from other disputes over JSE articles and JSE's scientific credibility on important but controversial science, health & medicine. Thanks.--I'clast 05:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)