Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Darkness Shines (talk | contribs)
31,762 edits
Revert BLP violation
rv: not a BLP vio; don't use BLP as a stick to win content disputes
Line 38: Line 38:


In general published papers present original theories, reviews, commentary, and speculation. Also covered is analysis of similarities and differences between competing theories ([[Big Bang]] vs [[Steady State theory]], [[panspermia]] vs [[abiogenesis]], etc.).<ref name=about/>
In general published papers present original theories, reviews, commentary, and speculation. Also covered is analysis of similarities and differences between competing theories ([[Big Bang]] vs [[Steady State theory]], [[panspermia]] vs [[abiogenesis]], etc.).<ref name=about/>

==Reliability==
The quality of peer review at the journal has been questioned several times.<ref>
{{cite web
|author=I. O'Neil
|date=7 March 2010
|title=NASA Refutes Alien Discovery Claim
|url=http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-refutes-alien-discovery-claim-110307.html
|work=[[Discovery News]]
|accessdate=2011-03-07
}}</ref><ref name=DSDB>
{{cite web
|author=P.Z. Myers
|authorlink=PZ Myers
|date=6 March 2011
|title=Did Scientists Discover Bacteria?
|url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php
|work=[[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]]
|accessdate=2011-03-06
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|author=P. Plait
|authorlink=Phil Plait
|date=7 March 2010
|title=Followup Thoughts on the Meteorite Fossils Claims
|url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/07/followup-thoughts-on-the-meteorite-fossils-claim/
|work=[[Discover Magazine]]
|accessdate=2011-03-06
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|author=L. Battison
|date=11 March 2011
|title=Microbes on a Moonbeam: Disentangling the Meteorite Microbe Claims
|url=http://leilabattison.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/microbes-on-a-moonbeam-disentangling-the-meteorite-microbe-claims/
|work=Science in Pen and Ink
|accessdate=2011-03-12
}}</ref> In particular, the journal has been accused of promoting [[fringe science|fringe viewpoints]] and speculative viewpoints on [[astrobiology]], [[astrophysics]], and [[quantum physics]]. Skeptical blogger and biologist [[PZ Myers]] said of the journal "... it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of [[Fred Hoyle|Hoyle]] and [[Chandra Wickramasinghe|Wickramasinghe]] that life [[panspermia|originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth]]."<ref name=DSDB/><ref>
{{cite web
|author=P.Z. Myers
|authorlink=PZ Myers
|date=23 July 2009
|title=An Amusingly Suspicious "Paper"
|url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/an_amusingly_suspicious_paper.php
|work=[[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]]
|accessdate=2011-03-06
}}</ref>

The journal's editor, [[Rudolph Schild]], also published several papers on "[[Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object]]s" (MECOs),<ref>{{cite journal
|author=R.E. Schild, D.J. Leiter
|date=2010
|title=Black Hole or MECO? Decided By a Thin Luminous Ring Structure Deep Within Quasar Q0957+561
|url=http://journalofcosmology.com/SchildLeiter1.pdf
|journal=Journal of Cosmology
|volume=6 |issue= |pages=1400
|doi=
|bibcode = 2010JCos....6.1400S
}}</ref> a fringe alternative to [[black hole]]s, in the journal.<ref name=theage>
{{cite web
|author=I. Sample
|date=30 July 2006
|url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-teams-quasar-probe-sinks-black-hole-theory/2006/07/29/1153816426971.html
|title=US team's quasar probe sinks black hole theory
|work=The Age.com
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|author=C. Hillman, J. Baez
|date=17 August 2004
|url=http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4aafdaf243ae90aa?
|title=Indian physicist vindicated in black hole controversy: Reply by John Baez
|work=sci.physics.relativity
}}</ref>


==Hoover paper controversy==
==Hoover paper controversy==
In early March 2011, the journal drew widespread criticism<ref>
In early March 2011, the journal drew widespread criticism<ref name=DSDB/><ref>
{{cite web
{{cite web
|author=D. Dobbs
|author=D. Dobbs
Line 48: Line 118:
|work=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]
|work=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]
|accessdate=2011-03-06
|accessdate=2011-03-06
}}</ref>
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
⚫
for the publication of a paper by [[Richard B. Hoover]], a [[NASA]] [[engineer]], claiming evidence for [[panspermia]],<ref>
|author=R. Redfield
|year=6 March 2011
|title=Is this claim of bacteria in a meteorite any better than the 1996 one?
|url=http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-this-claim-of-bacteria-in-meteorite.html
|work=[[RRResearch]]
|accessdate=2011-03-06
⚫
}}</ref> for the publication of a paper by [[Richard B. Hoover]], a [[NASA]] [[engineer]], claiming evidence for [[panspermia]],<ref>
{{cite journal
{{cite journal
|author=R.B. Hoover
|author=R.B. Hoover
Line 72: Line 149:
|work=David Dobbs's Somatic Marker
|work=David Dobbs's Somatic Marker
|accessdate=2011-09-22
|accessdate=2011-09-22
}}</ref>{{rs}} from "crackpots and charlatans".
}}</ref> from "crackpots and charlatans".<ref>
{{cite web
|author=I. Musgrave
|date=9 March 2011
|title=Commentaries posted at Journal of Cosmology
|url=http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2011/03/commentaries-posted-at-journal-of.html
|work=Astroblog
|accessdate=2011-03-12
}}</ref>


On 11 March 2011, in an open letter to the editors of ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' and ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]],'' Schild proposed to establish a commission to investigate the validity of the Hoover paper, which would be led by three experts appointed by ''Journal of Cosmology'', ''Science'' and ''Nature''.<ref name="Schild2008">
On 11 March 2011, in an open letter to the editors of ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' and ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]],'' Schild proposed to establish a commission to investigate the validity of the Hoover paper, which would be led by three experts appointed by ''Journal of Cosmology'', ''Science'' and ''Nature''.<ref name="Schild2008">

Revision as of 20:45, 25 September 2011

Not to be confused with Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.
Journal of Cosmology
DisciplineCosmology
LanguageEnglish
Edited byRudolph Schild
Publication details
History2009–present
Publisher
Cosmology Science Publishers (United States)
Standard abbreviations
ISO 4J. Cosmol.
Indexing
ISSN2159-063X
Links

Journal of Cosmology is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal of cosmology established in 2009. The journal is published by Cosmology Science Publishers and is edited by Rudolph Schild, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[1]


Scope

According to its website the focus of this journal is the advancement of science. This is accomplished by publishing original theories and discoveries in cosmology, astronomy, astrobiology, and earth and planetary sciences. Contributions may cover multiple disciplines and sub-disciplines of biology, geology, physics, chemistry, extinction, and the origin and evolution of life.[1]

In general published papers present original theories, reviews, commentary, and speculation. Also covered is analysis of similarities and differences between competing theories (Big Bang vs Steady State theory, panspermia vs abiogenesis, etc.).[1]

Reliability

The quality of peer review at the journal has been questioned several times.[2][3][4][5] In particular, the journal has been accused of promoting fringe viewpoints and speculative viewpoints on astrobiology, astrophysics, and quantum physics. Skeptical blogger and biologist PZ Myers said of the journal "... it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth."[3][6]

The journal's editor, Rudolph Schild, also published several papers on "Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects" (MECOs),[7] a fringe alternative to black holes, in the journal.[8][9]

Hoover paper controversy

In early March 2011, the journal drew widespread criticism[3][10][11] for the publication of a paper by Richard B. Hoover, a NASA engineer, claiming evidence for panspermia,[12] which proposes that life on Earth began on another planet, which then collided with another astronomical body, and the resulting debris carried life from the original planet to Earth. The journal dismissed the criticism as "a barrage of slanderous attacks"[13] from "crackpots and charlatans".[14]

On 11 March 2011, in an open letter to the editors of Science and Nature, Schild proposed to establish a commission to investigate the validity of the Hoover paper, which would be led by three experts appointed by Journal of Cosmology, Science and Nature.[15] The journal said it would interpret "any refusal to cooperate, no matter what the excuse" from Nature or Science as "vindication for the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper, and an acknowledgment that the editorial policies of the Journal of Cosmology are beyond reproach".[15]

On 1 April 2011, the James Randi Educational Foundation awarded Hoover and the Journal of Cosmology the tongue-in-cheek Pigasus Award for widely-dismissed claims that he had found signs of life in Mars rocks.[16]

Indexing

The Journal of Cosmology is abstracted and indexed in Astrophysics Data System, Polymer Library, and ProQuest.

References

  1. ^ a b c "About the Journal". Journal of Cosmology. Retrieved 27 July 2011.
  2. ^ I. O'Neil (7 March 2010). "NASA Refutes Alien Discovery Claim". Discovery News. Retrieved 7 March 2011.
  3. ^ a b c P.Z. Myers (6 March 2011). "Did Scientists Discover Bacteria?". Pharyngula. Retrieved 6 March 2011.
  4. ^ P. Plait (7 March 2010). "Followup Thoughts on the Meteorite Fossils Claims". Discover Magazine. Retrieved 6 March 2011.
  5. ^ L. Battison (11 March 2011). "Microbes on a Moonbeam: Disentangling the Meteorite Microbe Claims". Science in Pen and Ink. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
  6. ^ P.Z. Myers (23 July 2009). "An Amusingly Suspicious "Paper"". Pharyngula. Retrieved 6 March 2011.
  7. ^ R.E. Schild, D.J. Leiter (2010). "Black Hole or MECO? Decided By a Thin Luminous Ring Structure Deep Within Quasar Q0957+561" (PDF). Journal of Cosmology. 6: 1400. Bibcode:2010JCos....6.1400S.
  8. ^ I. Sample (30 July 2006). "US team's quasar probe sinks black hole theory". The Age.com.
  9. ^ C. Hillman, J. Baez (17 August 2004). "Indian physicist vindicated in black hole controversy: Reply by John Baez". sci.physics.relativity.
  10. ^ D. Dobbs (6 March 2011). "Aliens Riding Meteorites: Arsenic Redux or Something New?". Wired. Retrieved 6 March 2011.
  11. ^ R. Redfield (6 March 2011). "Is this claim of bacteria in a meteorite any better than the 1996 one?". RRResearch. Retrieved 6 March 2011.
  12. ^ R.B. Hoover (5 March 2011). "Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites". 13. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  13. ^ "The Controversy of the Hoover Meteorite Study: Official Statement The Journal of Cosmology, Have the Terrorists Won?". Journal of Cosmology. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
    The statement was taken down, but a copy of the original can be found at D. Dobbs (10 March 2001). "Journal of Cosmology calls criticism of Hoover alien paper a witchhunt". David Dobbs's Somatic Marker. Retrieved 22 September 2011.
  14. ^ I. Musgrave (9 March 2011). "Commentaries posted at Journal of Cosmology". Astroblog. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
  15. ^ a b R. Schild (11 March 2008). "The Journal of Cosmology Proposes a Scientific Commission, Established Co-Jointly with Science and Nature, To Investigate & Confirm the Validity of the Hoover Paper". Journal of Cosmology. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  16. ^ R. Mestel (1 April 2011). "Dr. Oz, Andrew Wakefield and others, um, 'honored' by James Randi". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2 April 2011.

Further reading

External links

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journal_of_Cosmology&diff=452410434&oldid=452409446

Leave a Reply