Study reveals declining influence of high impact factor journals

Nov 07, 2012
Study reveals declining influence of high impact factor journals
Vincent Larivière

The most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the world, such as Cell, Nature, Science, and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), have less and less influence amongst scientists, according to a paper co-authored by Vincent Larivière, a professor at the University of Montreal's School of Library and Information Sciences. He questions the relationship between journal "impact factor" and number of citations subsequently received by papers. "In 1990, 45% of the top 5% most cited articles were published in the top 5% highest impact factor journals. In 2009, this rate was only 36%," Larivière said. "This means that the most cited articles are published less exclusively in high impact factor journals." The proportion of these articles published in major scholarly journals has sharply declined over the last twenty years. His study was based on a sample of more than 820 million citations and 25 million articles published between 1902 and 2009. The findings were published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.

For each year analysed in the study, Larivière evaluated the strength of the relationship between article citations in the two years following publication against the impact factor. Then, he compared the proportion of the most cited articles published in the highest impact factor journals. "Using various measures, the goal was to see whether the 'predictive' power of impact factor on citations received by articles has changed over the years," Larivière said. "From 1902 to 1990, major findings were reported in the most prominent journals," notes Larivière. But this relationship is less true today."

Larivière and his colleagues George Lozano and Yves Gingras of UQAM's Observatoire des sciences et des technologies also found that the decline in high impact factor journals began in the early 90s, when the Internet experienced rapid growth within the scientific community. " has changed the way researchers are informed about scientific texts. Historically, we all subscribed to paper journals. Periodicals were the main source for articles, and we didn't have to look outside the major journals," Larivière noted. "Since the advent of Google Scholar, for example, the process of searching information has completely changed. Search engines provide access to all articles, whether or not they are published in prestigious journals."

Impact factor as a measure of a journal's influence was developed in the 1960s by Eugene Garfield, one of the founders of bibliometrics. "It is basically the average number of times a journal's articles are cited over a two-year period," Larivière explained. "Initially, this indicator was used to help libraries decide which journals to subscribe to. But over time, it began to be used to evaluate researchers and determine the value of their publications." The importance of impact factor is so ingrained in academia's collective consciousness that researchers themselves use impact factor to decide which journals they will submit their articles to.

Various experts in bibliometrics have criticized the use of impact factor as a measure of an academic journal's visibility. A common criticism is that the indicator contains a calculation error. "Citations from all types of documents published by journal are counted," Larivière said, "but they are divided only by the number of articles and research notes. Impact factor is thus overestimated for journals that publish a good deal of editorials, letters to the editor, and science news, such as Science and Nature."

Another criticism is that the time frame in which citations are counted in calculating impact factor is too short. "There are research areas in which knowledge dissemination is faster than it is in others," Larivière said. "We cannot, for example, expect to get the same kind of impact factor in engineering and biomedical sciences." Yet journal impact factor is established in the two-year period following publication of articles regardless of the discipline.

The research results reveal some interesting points. On the one hand, journals are increasingly poor predictors of the number of citations an article can expect to receive. "Not only has the predictive power of impact factor declined, but also, impact factor is no longer suitable for evaluating research," Larivière argued. In his opinion, if we want to evaluate researchers and their work, it is best to use citations, which are a true measure of an article's impact. "This indicator is more accurate. It is not an estimation based on the hierarchy of journals." On the other hand, his work confirms that the dynamics of scholarly journals is changing, due especially to the open access of knowledge made possible by the Internet. "What then is the present function of scholarly journals?" Larivière asked. "One remains: peer review."

Explore further: Will rapprochement mean new research collaborations between Cuba and the U.S.?

Related Stories

Free articles get read but don't generate more citations

Jul 31, 2008

When academic articles are "open access" or free online, they get read more often, but they don't -- going against conventional wisdom -- get cited more often in academic literature, finds a new Cornell study.

Recommended for you

Study: Alcatraz inmates could have survived escape

Dec 17, 2014

The three prisoners who escaped from Alcatraz in one of the most famous and elaborate prison breaks in U.S. history could have survived and made it to land, scientists concluded in a recent study.

User comments : 77

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

johanfprins
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2012
The problem is more fundamental. The "prestige" journals censor all manuscripts which might affect the validity of mainstream scientists in control of the subject. In other words, the crackpots have taken over and are in charge of scientific journals.

Any scientist knows that if he/she discovers something that could cause a paradigm shift in his/her subject, he/she does not have a snowball's chance in hell to get it published in the "prestige journals" like Science, Nature etc.

The latter already started in physics in 1927 after the crackpots revolted at the Solvay conference in Belgium; and set the course for physics into Alice's Wonderland.
Doug_Huffman
2.9 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012
As big science and its journals have become politicized, so have I withdrawn my support. Beware, though, that the people's science has the opposite problem of tolerating too much, crackpottery, and adhockery.

Capitalism functions properly only in an intelligent and skeptical market that is obviated by the subscription business model. John Hancock 'subscribed', I do not.
Lex Talonis
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2012
The Lancette is one example of a huge pack of fucking wankers.

I put my article up for publication, stating that if "norm" of a hospital is to be warm and humid, which is the perfect petri dish for growing and spreading nasty diseases;

So depending upon the regional climate, by lowering the temperature to say 15*C, and lowering the humidity to say 5%, all the nasty germs dry out and die out.

People tend to sleep better in cool buildings, and as far as heating and cooling the buildings go, none of these stupid fucks in the Lancette or who run most hospitals, has ever heard of opening (almost all) the windows - cool day, warm day, not too hot day - fresh air = excellent.

antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2012
The reason for this decline might be that nowadays other avenues for publication are available (arxiv, openaccess, ...). In 1990 those weren't available at all - and those that were weren't as easily searchable through the web.

Impact factor journals were (and are) at least guaranteed to have peer review (except for the stated calculation error in the article) - which is important.

Any scientist knows that if he/she discovers something that could cause a paradigm shift in his/her subject, he/she does not have a snowball's chance in hell to get it published in the "prestige journals" like Science, Nature etc.

Funnily those that have actually transformed science (e.g. Relativity in the prestigious 'Annalen der Physik' - the premiere physics journal of the time) have had no problem publishing their works. So your 'assessment' is not borne out by facts.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2012
so have I withdrawn my support

Science is shocked. Shocked I tell you.

I put my article up for publication, stating that if "norm" of a hospital is to be warm and humid, which is the perfect petri dish for growing and spreading nasty diseases;

Did you make any measuerements? Did you perform control experiments? Did you subjct your data to statistical analysis? Or did you just state yoou 'gut reaction' on this - no matter how sensible it may sound.

If it's just the latter then OF COURSE did they reject your paper. Because then it was just an editorial and not a scientific work.

by lowering the temperature to say 15*C, and lowering the humidity to say 5%, all the nasty germs dry out and die out.

At that temperature and humidity the patients die out, too.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2012
Any scientist knows that if he/she discovers something that could cause a paradigm shift in his/her subject, he/she does not have a snowball's chance in hell to get it published in the "prestige journals" like Science, Nature etc.

Funnily those that have actually transformed science (e.g. Relativity in the prestigious 'Annalen der Physik' - the premiere physics journal of the time) have had no problem publishing their works. So your 'assessment' is not borne out by facts.


That was long before the crackpots started to control science. In the case of physics the crackpots took charge in 1927 at the Solvay conference.

So I am not wrong: During the past 10 yeras I have gathered evidence that will stand up in court that present day editors are censors who will not publish anything which might prove these crackpots wrong. Funny that you should mention Annalen der Physik, while the editor Ulrich Eckern is one opf the most crackpot censors you can find on this planet.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012
@ Lex Talonis,

Don't take anatalias-physorg seriously! He/she is going through life with such large eyeflaps that he/she cannot even see the lenght of his/her nose!
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2012
So I am no wrong: During the past 10 yeras I have gathered evidence rthat will stand up in court that present day editors are censors.

Present it. Please. Do.

Because for (most of) the past ten years I have been a scientist and have reviewed my fair share of publications in the field (biomechanical and segmentation algorithms) for journals. And I have yet to see one publication that was marked as 'minor revisions needed'* that hasn't gone on to be published eventually in some form.

* 'minor revisions needed' is the usual mark because you almost always find some detail the author has overlooked or could make more clear. As a reviewer you get the choice between 'accept', 'minor revisions needed', 'major revisions needed' and 'reject'. But a straightforward 'accept' is rare (as is a straightforward 'reject'). And for all of those (except for 'accept') you have to explain exactly why you chose that mark so that the author can make the changes and resubmit for a second round.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2012
There are always several reviewers (usually about 5) who don't know each other. So even if one or two would have a beef with the author that would show up quite glaringly in a discrepancy between the marks given. But you don't know who the author is, in any case, because papers are handed out anonymized to reviewers.

Then there's the editors. Editors aren't scientists. They have no scientific training at all (or very little at most). They are journalists. They just get sent the papers, check them for format an organize the review process. That's all.
They don't enter into the judgement process of what goes into a journal and what doesn't at any point. That one is up to the reviewers.
Editors don't even UNDERSTAND the papers that get published. Mostly even the REVIEWERS have a hard time understanding these papers (and THEY have years of experience working in the field).
johanfprins
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012
Present it. Please. Do.

Editors don't even UNDERSTAND the papers that get published. Mostly even the REVIEWERS have a hard time understanding these papers (and THEY have years of experience working in the field).
To show that you are a liar:

15 October: Physics letters A is devoted to the rapid disseminationof important new results in physics. To be considered for publication, ar4ticles must be sufficiently original, timely, urgent and of wide interest to justify rapid publication. I regret that this work does not satisfy the criteria for publication in Physics Letters A. P. R. Holland Editor.

5 Nov: From our understanding of the paper's context, motivation, presentation, level of argumentation, and degree of importance and interest to physics research, we conclude that your paper is not suited for Physical Review Letters. In view of our assessment we are not sending your manuscript out for review: Robert Garisto; Editor.

Strangely enough PRL uses me as a referee.


johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012
In both cases it is the same manuscript, which has been checked by comptent physicists here in South Africa, and which they consider to be everything that these two editors claim that it is not.

And since I am a referee for PRL, it is hardly likely that I will submit garbage. As one of my colleagues pointed out to me: You will probably never get past the editors since if you are correct at least 10 Nobel Prizes were awarded for wrong physics, and the mainstream scientists will have to explain why they wasted billions of dollars on useless endeavours.

So there you are: I have consistently found in my career that mediocre papers which do not challenge mainstream dogma, were NEVER rejected; but ALL my manuscripts that could be controversial for mainstream dogma have consistently been rejected without even sending them out for reviewe; AND without giving reasons based on the actual physics-content of the manuscript why it is not suitable.

Remove your eyeflaps. Crackpots are in charge!
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2012
. To be considered for publication, ar4ticles must be sufficiently original, timely, urgent and of wide interest to justify rapid publication. I regret that this work does not satisfy the criteria for publication in Physics Letters A. P. R. Holland Editor.
So? That only means that your paper wasn't original (i.e. it contained no research of your own) or it didn't fit any of the other criteria.

motivation, presentation, level of argumentation, and degree of importance and interest to physics research, we conclude that your paper is not suited for Physical Review Letter

Yes. They screen for crank papers. So? Read a few scientific papers yand you'll realize what is required of one. You probably have the paper somewhere on the web? If you have I can probably tell you wwhy it didn't pass even such a cursory test. Writing a paper is a skill.

And there's nothing stopping you from submitting to other journals.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2012
. To be considered for publication, .... Physics Letters A. P. R. Holland Editor.
So? That only means that your paper wasn't original (i.e. it contained no research of your own) or it didn't fit any of the other criteria.
No just the opposite: It was TOO original and groundbreaking: But it just proves what a criminal liar you are. You have just stated above that the editors do NOT judge manuscripts but only send them out to be refereed. Have you got no integrity whatsoever? Obviously NOT! A Person like you probably does not know who is/her mother is and your mother probably do not know who your father is.

Yes. They screen for crank papers. So? Read a few scientific papers and you'll realize what is required of one.
So you are arguing that PRL appointed me as a referee while I do not know what is required from manuscripts submitted to them? Typical from a person like you: You cannot even SPELL the word integrity!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2012
You probably have the paper somewhere on the web?
Not this paper s[ecifically burt the essence opf many papers which have been rejected by the same criminals during the past 10 years. It should not be difficult to trace them.
If you have I can probably tell you wwhy it didn't pass even such a cursory test.
Well then read what is on the internet that I have written and rell me why I am wrong. Alternatively, send me your e-mail address and I will send this specific paper too you to judge, hopefully in terms of the physics involved.
Writing a paper is a skill.
Correct, that is why I have a very good citation index even though my best papers have been consistently rejected by criminal crackpots.

And there's nothing stopping you from submitting to other journals.
I have been doing this for 10 years and will keep on doing this, even if in the end I will only be able to create the Hall of Shame of Main Stream Physics Crackpots, like Holland, Garrido,...
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2012
Wilczek, Josephson, Pippard, Berry, Eckern, Saller, 't Hoofd, Scalapino, Archie Campbel, Karen Southwell, Ian Osborne, .... and too many others to recall at such short notice.

These people are not only crackpots but they are physics criminals since they all betrayed the ideals of the gentlemen who tried in the 17th century to eliminate such criminality when they founded the Royal Society of London. The tatters that have reamined from the latter society, should be burned to the ground. Modern physics is betraying humanity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2012
You probably have the paper somewhere on the web? If you have I can probably tell you wwhy it didn't pass even such a cursory test. Writing a paper is a skill.


So you are sure you will be able to motivate and explain why these two criminals rejected this manuscript? If this is so easy, why do these two criminals not respond when I ask them to motivate it?

I will tell you why: BECAUSE THEY CANNOT. They are just two dishonest sc--b-gs!! I hope they will try and sue me for defamation since, in the interest of the future of physics, I would love to cross-examine them in a court of law!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2012
They don't enter into the judgement process of what goes into a journal and what doesn't at any point. That one is up to the reviewers.


Yes. They screen for crank papers.


Can you see why you are a criminal liar! Disgusting!!
Jotaf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2012
I find it weird that you got your paper vetoed by an editor, since in my area (Computer Science) that is unheard of. In fact, as a reviewer you get a *lot* of crap papers to shoot down because the reviewers are the only filter. An editor will only take a crack at a paper if the reviewers couldn't unanimously reach a verdict.

I must point out that in CS, unlike other areas, the most prestigious publications are conferences, which have a peer review as stringent or more than journals. We have a very fast publication cycle. So there are some differences between areas.

As a side note, we can't publish in the Science journal unless we appeal to some biological explanation that makes the neuroscientists go "oh, that's interesting!". Natural sciences have very beefed up impact factors for some reason.
wealthychef
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2012
Peer review is doable without print journals. I'm hoping these dinosaurs die out. They slow down information, since you have to submit your article to only one journal and are muzzled until it is published generally, which can be a slow process. Publication is free now using WordPress, only the organizational structure of the reviewers needs to be determined.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
I find it weird that you got your paper vetoed by an editor, since in my area (Computer Science) that is unheard of. ....

That is the way it should be, and IS for mediocre physics manuscripts. But it is the exceptions that prove the rule: In physics this rule is that any manuscript which in any way threatens mainstream dogma, is autmatically rejected by the editor without giving any reasons based on physics-content. My files are full of such rejections.

If, as in the manuscript used as an example above, you derive an alternative differential wave-equation for an electron than the one Dirac has derived, it is immediately rejected, notwithstanding the fact that you start from the same relativistic equation that Dirac has started from, and make the same operator substitutions.

If this manuscript is correct, and it IS correct, it wipes away ALL quantum Field Theory. This is why the editors reject it. How can the fallacy of the "Higgs" be wrong! Admit $20 billion wasted at CERN?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
Peer review is doable without print journals. I'm hoping these dinosaurs die out. They slow down information, since you have to submit your article to only one journal and are muzzled until it is published generally, which can be a slow process. Publication is free now using WordPress, only the organizational structure of the reviewers needs to be determined.


We must also ban ANONYMOUS reviewers. If you are not willing to do the review and sign your name to your opinion, you are unfit to be a reviewer. I always sign my name when I do a review, and not in a single case did the author come back and fought with me. In fact many came back and thanked me for giving them new insights into physics.

It is interesting that Physical Review Letters refused that I allow the authors to know who I am: I have found this distateful and dishonest.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2012
It was TOO original and groundbreaking: But it just proves what a criminal liar you are.

That's what you say. Based on your posts here I'd suspct that it was just dull of unsupported claims. But as I said: you certainly still have it. There's arxiv.org or openaccess (or probably your own webpage) where you can put it uo and we can have a look at it. Until you do I call 'cold fusion' on this.

You have just stated above that the editors do NOT judge manuscripts but only send them out to be refereed.

I also said that they judge the format (i.e. did you do a state of the art review? Did you use the scientific method, etc.). The stuff that goes out to reviewers does need to conform to that MINIMUM set of criteria they noted in the responses to you.

It may also be that you sent to the wrong journal (happened to me once. I submitted in IEEE medical imaging but they told me that it wasn't appropriate and to resubmit to IEEE biomedical engineering where it got accepted)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2012
So you are arguing that PRL appointed me as a referee while I do not know what is required from manuscripts submitted to them?

They have the requirements on their webpage. Also reading a few papers in their publications should give you a pretty good idea what is required. The most often made mistake (and one I made in my first paper myself) is: using qualitative instead of quantitative language.

So I'd ask you: put the paper up. You've written it so it shouldn't be too hard. I don't believe this 'gist of it is on the web' crap. If that is your excuse then you're lying about ever haven written it. No one throws their own papers away - published or not. Too much work goes into this.

So you are sure you will be able to motivate and explain why these two criminals rejected this manuscript?

No, but but I may be able to show you if there is a formal, fundamental problem with the paper why it doesn't even make it to peer review.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
It was TOO original and groundbreaking: But it just proves what a criminal liar you are.

That's what you say. Based on your posts here I'd suspct that it was just dull of unsupported claims.

It shows you again what a criminal liar you are. I have already three times derived on this forum that the correct relativistic wave equation for a moving electron is Maxwell's equation; not Dirac's equation. Nobody has come back and refuted my derivation in terms mathematical and physics-logic. Is this dull physics? Only a complete moron like you will claim that it is.
There's arxiv.org or openaccess (or probably your own webpage) where you can put it uo and we can have a look at it. Until you do I call 'cold fusion' on this.
This manuscript is only a small part of a lot of work which I could not get published and which is on my webpage. There are also two articles on ArXive. The fact that you do not even know this, just proves again what a moron you are.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2012
It shows you again what a criminal liar you are.

So post the paper. Go ahead. You have it as pdf - there's really nothing stopping you from putting it on openaccees or arxiv.org

I told you: I'm willing to look at it and may be able to tell you why it wasn't accepted (not by content - which is the job of reviewers - but by format, style, reference checks, etc. ). I.e. why the EDITORS wouldn't send it on to review in the first place.

The fact that you do not even know this, just proves again what a moron you are.

Then post the links already. What are you waiting for? That you have 'a lot of work which you could not get published' means nothing. I have tons of scrapbooks of unpublished stuff scattered around my home. So what? If it's not in a publishable state then it's not worth crying about not being able to get it published.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
I also said that they judge the format (i.e. did you do a state of the art review? Did you use the scientific method, etc.). The stuff that goes out to reviewers does need to conform to that MINIMUM set of criteria they noted in the responses to you.
Then why did they not reject the manuscript in terms of these arguments? You are again trying to wriggle out of the fact that you are a complete moron!

And in eiher case since I am a refree of PRL I find it insulting that an obvious nincompoop like you, want to insinuate that I do not know the format etc. that is required.

It may also be that you sent to the wrong journal (happened to me once.
It does not surprise me: Only a moron like you will make such a mistake.
l imaging but they told me that it wasn't appropriate and to resubmit to IEEE biomedical engineering where it got accepted)
Well if I have been just as stupid as you are, why did these editors not advise me where to resubmit.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
They have the requirements on their webpage. Also reading a few papers in their publications should give you a pretty good idea what is required.
Do you think that I would have been allowed by PRL to referee manuscripts if I did NOT know this? You are a patronising moron.
The most often made mistake (and one I made in my first paper myself) is: using qualitative instead of quantitative language.
Like I posted, I am not surprised that you made such stupid mistakes since you have proved over and over again on this forum that you are a moron.

So I'd ask you: put the paper up. You've written it so it shouldn't be too hard.
If you are not even willing to read what I have posted on my web and on ArXive, why should I post my latest paper for the convenience a person who has consistently proved on this forum that he is a moron.
No one throws their own papers away - published or not.
Where did I say that I threw this paper away?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2012
So post the paper. Go ahead. You have it as pdf - there's really nothing stopping you from putting it on openaccees or arxiv.org
I will never post on ArXive again. It will be posted on my website when the time for it is ripe: Not just because a moron like you instructs me to do so.

I told you: I'm willing to look at it and may be able to tell you why it wasn't accepted (not by content - which is the job of reviewers - but by format, style, reference checks, etc. ). I.e. why the EDITORS wouldn't send it on to review in the first place.
And I told you to send me your name and e-mail address so that I can ascertain whether you are able to do what you claim that you can do. From what I have read on this discussin forum, I do not think you have the physics-knowledge to judge the work of a grade 8 pupil in school.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2012
Then why did they not reject the manuscript in terms of these arguments?

The way I read the replies from them that you posted: that is exactly what they did.

I find it insulting that an obvious nincompoop like you, want to insinuate that I do not know the format etc. that is required.

What you find insulting or not doesn't really come into this. Sometimes papers are just written badly - even by people with experience (we once wrote 6 papers in our group for conferences - and the only one that was't accepted was the one by the head of the department).
Being a referee doesn't make you immune from writing a paper that isn't up to spec.
why did these editors not advise me where to resubmit.

I dont know. Maybe the journal you sent to doesn't have an appropriate other, associated journal? There's nothing in it for them by telling you to go publish with competitors. (But that's just a guess)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
Then post the links already. What are you waiting for? That you have 'a lot of work which you could not get published' means nothing.
So you are to stupid to switch on Google and search my name Johan F Prins? And YOU publish on electrical engineering?! Oh my God!

My website is www.cathodixx.com

You should be able to easily find my posts on ArXive by yourself. If you are not able to do this ask a grade 8 school pupil to help you.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 08, 2012
double post
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2012
So you are to stupid to switch on Google and search my name Johan F Prins?

I asked you to point to the exact paper that got refused. I'm certainly not going to read through everything that has your name attached to it on the web and guess which one got the comments from editors you posted.

Posting that link shouldn't be too hard. Certainly much faster than typing all the stuff you have been typing for the past days.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
Then why did they not reject the manuscript in terms of these arguments?

The way I read the replies from them that you posted: that is exactly what they did.
It is a criminal who does not motivate why he/she came to the conclusions he/she came to. I have found in life that persons who are not willing to motivate their actions are without exception liars and criminals.
Sometimes papers are just written badly - even by people with experience
Not in my case.
(we once wrote 6 papers ..the only one that was't accepted was the one by the head of the department).
It does not surprise me that you could only find work in a department where your boss is just as big a moron as you are.
Being a referee doesn't make you immune from writing a paper that isn't up to
] Maybe not: But it is my policy NOT to write such papers. Since I worked simultaneouly in industry and university, I was not under pressure to publish or perish. I went for quality all the way.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
I dont know.
EXACTLY: You know f-all but arrogate yourself the right to judge as if you do know.
Maybe the journal you sent to doesn't have an appropriate other, associated journal?
Maybe, maybe maybe: Can you not see how plum crazy you are?
There's nothing in it for them by telling you to go publish with competitors.
Since it is not up to standard will they not be pleased if the competition makes fools of themselves by publishing it?
(But that's just a guess)
Everything you have posted is based on guessing: Just proving again what a crackpot you are.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
So you are to stupid to switch on Google and search my name Johan F Prins?

I asked you to point to the exact paper that got refused. Posting that link shouldn't be too hard. Certainly much faster than typing all the stuff you have been typing for the past days.

It does not fit my own plans to post it now on the internet. I have offered to send it to you if you send me your name and e-mail address. I am not interested in an anonymous opinion: Especially not yours.

Why have you not yet commented on my derivation of the Wave equation of an electron which I have already posted three times on this forum. The manuscript is about the same topic. It was rejected because the editors knew that it invalidates QFT. That is why they dare not motivate their reasons for rejecting the manuscript.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2012
It is a criminal who does not motivate why he/she came to the conclusions he/she came to.

The way I read it they told you excatly why they thought the paper didn't fit their criteria. But remember: Journals are publications (for money). They don't really care about the science when all is said and done. They are not obliged to do anything but accept or reject.
Not in my case.

Obviously not. Or your paper would have gotten accepted.
It does not surprise me that you could only find work in a department where your boss is just as big a moron as you are.

One of his papers. Out of I don't know how many. It happens. (And yes, I think the paper in question was a bit weak on substance. It was accepted as a poster but he declined to go for that)

Everything you have posted is based on guessing:

Well yes: since you refuse to link to the (which seems increasingly fictional) paper - what else is there?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2012
The manuscript is about the same topic. It was rejected because the editors knew that it invalidates QFT.

That is what you say. I can read that sentiment nowhere in the replies that you posted.

That they 'dare not motivate their reasons' is pure conjecture on your part. Their replies name their reasons the way I read it.

Why have you not yet commented on my derivation of the Wave equation of an electron which I have already posted three times on this forum.

Others already have, and I have nothing to add to the criticisms that have been stated. I only post 'me too' post when I'm exceedingly bored.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
It does not fit my own plans to post it now on the internet.

Sooo...let me recap:

You (try to) insult me for not looking up the paper in question on arxiv or your own page - and then you admit that it isn't on the web at all.

And then you keep calling ME a liar?

That's rich.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
The way I read it they told you excatly why they thought the paper didn't fit their criteria.
They did not: They only gave excuses for not sending it out for review without telling why they have made the judgment they have made. No judge in a court of law will be allowed to get away with a judgment without motivaying it. This is what people with integrity expectsw: Oh I forgot: You do not understand the latter concept.

It does not surprise me that you could only find work in a department where your boss is just as big a moron as you are. [/q}
One of his papers. Out of I don't know how many. It happens. (And yes, I think the paper in question was a bit weak on substance. It was accepted as a poster but he declined to go for that)
It still proves that you are working at a second rate institution, and explains why your own abilities are second rate.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
They only gace excuses without telling why they have made the judgment they have made.

That's just your interpretation.
No judge in a court of law will be allowed to get away with such a criminal act.

I'm not sure you undesrtand this: Publishers of journals are not a court of law. They are companies.

So I'll just bow out now. Because this whole thing seems to be based on you writing a sub-standard(and possibly imagined/fictional) paper and then getting all hissy about a completely imagined slight (which isn't born out by any facts whatsoever) which you then blow up into some mind-boggling conspiracy among (economically competing!) journals.

That's just too many sorts of crazy for me to continue to waste my time on.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
It still proves that you are working at a second rate institution, and explains why your own abilities are second rate.

Because my boss once wrote a paper that didn't get accepted makes it a 'second rate institution' and makes my work also 'second rate'? (Though I have, until now, gotten all my stuff published - and never even had to go for poster session in conferences)?

Well, if you think so that's your prerogative. But that certainly makes your stuff lowest possible rate by comparison.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
The manuscript is about the same topic. It was rejected because the editors knew that it invalidates QFT.

That is what you say. I can read that sentiment nowhere in the replies that you posted.
Of course they will not state that they reject the manuscript since it might invalidate QFT. That is exactly why they refuse to motivate their decisions; after requesting from them to do so.

That they 'dare not motivate their reasons' is pure conjecture on your part. Their replies name their reasons the way I read it.
Your opinion is that of a moron! Where did they motivate their reasons? Stop being such a criminal liar!

Why have you not yet commented on my derivation of the Wave equation of an electron which I have already posted three times on this forum.

Others already have,
Where have they? Please be more specific. I do not know of a single person on this forum who proved that my derivation is wrong. So you are lying again!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
No judge in a court of law will be allowed to get away with such a criminal act.

I'm not sure you undesrtand this: Publishers of journals are not a court of law. They are companies.
Of course you will not understand it since you are not able to understand that especially in physics differences of opinions MUST be motivated. If you do not believe the latter, then for God's sake stop contaminating science with your moronic mentality: Become a bouncer at a whorehouse: It will suit your talents better.

So I'll just bow out now.
Thank God! I hope you will stick to this decision since you have contributed nothin intelligently!
Because this whole thing seems to be based on you writing a sub-standard(conspiracy among (economically competing!) journals.
I have offered to send the manuswcript to you provided that I know who you are. Are you too scared that I will find out that you are an even bigger moron than you appear to be?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
It does not fit my own plans to post it now on the internet.

Sooo...let me recap:

You (try to) insult me for not looking up the paper in question on arxiv or your own page - and then you admit that it isn't on the web at all.
I have nowhere claimed it is he exact same manuscript

And then you keep calling ME a liar?

If only you were just a liar, but you are also a moron. I will pray for you!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
Because my boss once wrote a paper that didn't get accepted makes it a 'second rate institution' and makes my work also 'second rate'? (Though I have, until now, gotten all my stuff published -
Probably because they are so mediocre that it cannot upset anybody! Or alternatively you must have used the journals one buys at the SEVEN-ELEVEN stores?
and never even had to go for poster session in conferences)?
So you never had any students. Thank God they are intelligent enough NOT to choose YOU as a supervisor. I do not believe that you are able to give an intelligent talk at any conference.

Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2012
Anti, you should stop playing with turds. It's not healthy.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
Anti, you should stop playing with turds. It's not healthy.

Duly noted. Done.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2012
It amazes me that antialias states that the editors did motivate why they decided to reject the papers, but in the same breath offers to read the paper and motivate to me why they did this.

If their behaviour was sufficiently clear, why must I involve an anonymous imbecile into the discourse. Especially one who already "knows" that these editors were correct. Bigots and closed-minded people like him will always see the most exotic clothes being worn by the Emporer.

Carl Sagan did not lie when he stated the following: "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)"

Imbeciles do not have open minds and always defend the bamboozle at all odds.
rubberman
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2012
"Imbeciles do not have open minds and always defend the bamboozle at all odds."

If you are the real Johan Prins, you know how easy it is to be duped by your own understanding. If, by all accounts a theory seems plausible and there is evidence to support it, to actively investigate the alternatives is to attempt to invalidate your own beliefs. Most people don't do this, scientists included. You are not a young man yet it is now in the latter part of your career that you are railing against the establishment. I don't know how old AP is but it is clear his career is in the field of science which makes him one of your peers, repeatedly calling him a moron and an imbecile because he doesn't follow your newfound path is not the behaviour of a scientist, it makes you come off like a ranting lunatic no matter how valid what you're saying is.

rubberman
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2012
Not saying I haven't called people here worse, but I reserve the ad hoc attacks and snarky remarks for the posters who either have no idea of the scientific method, yet denounce science and scientists as scammers and profit mongers, or the guys who flood post boards with their own theories which they claim as fact and yet cannot scientifically support with the math or the observed evidence to support what they claim. Personally I find your claims intriguing.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2012
If you are the real Johan Prins,
I am.
you know how easy it is to be duped by your own understanding.
I am always aware of this. It is part of the "Hippocratic oath" of physics that you must accept that at any stage you can be proved to be wrong, and then you must concede. In fact every physicist must accept that it might even be possible that ALL our most sacred beliefs at present will falter in the future.

I have always adhered to this principle and therefore I am very disappointed that my experinces, especially during the past 10 years indicate that I might be part of a rapidly dwindling number of physicists alive who still lives by this principle.

For years I taught quantum mechanics, QFT, BCS etc. with great pride and confidence. But in 2000, I did a simple experiment that proved beyond doubt that the concepts of "wave-particle duality" and "comlementarity" are just plain wrong. In this experiment I could "fuse" electrons to form a single holistic wave.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2012
The wave has no duality with electron-"particles" whatsoever. I the realised that the desription "identical" in quantum statistics has been incorrectly associated with "indistinguishable". The macro-wave also transmitted electrons without an electric-field being present within it. The latter fact can be easily proved from simple high school electrostatics. Thus the macro-wave, without separate ditinguishable identical entities superconducts at room temperature and even at temperatures in excess of 400 Celsius.

I did not come to this conclusion easily "Old habits die slowly". But if the experimental results prove beyond doubt that large aspects of physics that I have taught my students, and on which I have based the interpreation of some of my publications, I have to concede that I have been wrong in the past

But I soon found out that the mainstream physicists would have none of it. All journals refusedto publish my results since thereare no phonons in my phase: BCS is is Holy Writ!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2012
My manuscripts were rejected without giving any reasons: I did not realize at that stage this will become the pattern. In 2002 I was invited to give a talk on Ion Implantation into Diamond in England. The chairman of the Conference was Prof. Jackman and I implored him to at least get somebody whoc will be willing to give a scientific evaluation of my experiments on superconduction.

He could not find anybody who could give him a singkle reason why my physics must be wrong. Bravely he decided to include this work into the proceedings of the conference.

Soon afterwards he was called by Prof Mardhall stoneham FRS, who later became president of the IOP who castigated him for publishing manuscripts that he should know "must be wrong". Marshall awd invited to write a manuscript pointing out why it "must be wrong". He never did and now after his death will most probabaly not be able to correct his bigotry!

Since then any manuscript that I tried to submit was rejected ut of hand;
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2012
I don't know how old AP is but it is clear his career is in the field of science which makes him one of your peers,
I doubt whther he can be counted as a peer: Remember it was also Galileo's "peers" who put him under housr arrest.
repeatedly calling him a moron and an imbecile because he doesn't follow your newfound path
No I did not call him these names because he differs from my physics, but because he is so dishonest in this whole discourse:
Firstly he stated that the editors do not judge manuscripts but leave that for the reviewers.
Then I produced evidence which proved that he lied.
Then he started attack my ability as a scientist by stating that they must weed out "crackpot" papers. And that they did motivate why they did it. But in addition he offers to read the manuscript and give me their motivation. Why is the latter necessary, if the editors, according to his opinion, already motivated their decision?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2012
is not the behaviour of a scientist, it makes you come off like a ranting lunatic no matter how valid what you're saying is.
After 10 years of stonewalling and lies it becomes difficult to respond in another manner when you come up against a patroniser who does not know what he is talking.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with losing you temper. Even Jesus Christ lost his temper and physically attacked people in the forecourt of the temple in Jerusakem.

Antialias is not interested to give an objective evaluation of my work. I pointed out to him time and again that the manuscript is the derivation of the wave equation for an electron, which turns out to be Maxwell's equation and not Dirac's equation. I pointed out to him that I have posted this derivation at least three times on this forum. And I asked him to show me why this derivation is crackpot. He refused. Thus I will state it again in the interest of physics: He IS a moron and imbecile
rubberman
3 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2012
"After 10 years of stonewalling and lies it becomes difficult to respond in another manner ....

This I can understand and i agree, there is nothing wrong with losing your temper, it shows you care. I tell my children this all the time. I was not aware of the hypocratic oath of physics, everything I have learned I have learned outside the classroom, either through my chosen career or on my own time out of curiosity. It is far more difficult to differentiate between what is solid theory and what is entrenched dogma learning this way, but it breeds a more critical eye when viewing certain theories and hypothesis.

As far as your dirivation not being accepted AND no attempts to falsify it by the people qualified to do so, I would surmise that falsification of the Dirac equation as it relates to electron relatavistic motion scared the crap out of steadfast standard theorists. I will read more on your work.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2012
I'm sorry to say Johan, after reading everything you've written, that you remind me of someone: Dr Oliver Manuel of the University of Missouri-Rolla.

Even if you are right (and I have not looked into it) coming onto a site like this to argue your case with laymen makes you look petty, arrogant and desparate.

And descending into base name calling is beyond unprofessional.

Seriously. If you have a case, you need to find a better way to present it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2012
I would surmise that falsification of the Dirac equation as it relates to electron relatavistic motion scared the crap out of steadfast standard theorists.
Exactly! It means that Quantum Field Theory collapses into rubble. There goes quantum electrodynamics, Feynman diagrams, the standard model of particle physics, the Higgs boson etc..

I am not the only person who have reasoned that QFT is nonsense, but all of us are consistently excommunicated: If it were 400 years ago we would have been burned at the stake. Even a person like Carver Mead (Caltech) who was instrumental in establishing silicon valley, and obtained presidential recognition for it, and was a student of Feynman, experienced this after he made the same comments in an interview published in the Amwerican Spectator.

Garrido, the editor who rejected my manuscript at PRL, without any motivation, has only published in QFT.
I will read more on your work.


Thank you: And feel free to ask questions anytime.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2012
..coming onto a site like this to argue your case with laymen makes you look petty, arrogant and desparate.
Well if the crackpots in control of physics constantly censor you, this is the only option. You will be surprised how much laymen know; and even more surprised how much they can contribute since they are not fetterred by useless dogma like QFT.

And descending into base name calling is beyond unprofessional.
If you go back, you will find that I only react in this manner after I have been accused of being a crackpot. Just look at Antialias, who first claimed that editors only direct manuscripts to reviewers, and then after I proved that this is not the case, he claimed that they must "weed out crackpot" manuscripts. Who was the first to insult in this case?

If you have a case, you need to find a better way to present it.
I am trying ALL the ways open to me since the official ones have been blocked for 10 years by now. Please suggest an alternative!
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2012
Well if the crackpots in control of physics constantly censor you, this is the only option.


Excellent! More name calling. Yep THAT makes your argument look better.

You will be surprised how much laymen know; and even more surprised how much they can contribute since they are not fetterred by useless dogma like QFT.


No I wouldn't. Nice straw man though.

If you go back, you will find that I only react in this manner after I have been accused of being a crackpot.


Oh well, jeeze that makes it ok then! How about grow up?

I am trying ALL the ways open to me since the official ones have been blocked for 10 years by now. Please suggest an alternati


You just don't get it. "I know something every other pyhsicist on the planet doesn't know, that will fundamentally change physics as we know them! But no one will listen to me! I know--I'll argue with people on a website!" Ya, doesn't make you sound like a crackpot.

Good luck with that, you'll need it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2012
You just don't get it. "I know something every other pyhsicist on the planet doesn't know, that will fundamentally change physics as we know them! But no one will listen to me!
I have not said that no-one will listen to me: I have colleagues who do and agree with me that I am correct. What I am saying is that for 10 years I could not get it publisked and I have stacks of evidence to prove this
I know--I'll argue with people on a website!"
And what is wrong with that? Stop deliberately pulling things out of context. What is your interest in this anyway?

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2012
Interesting. One reason for the decrease in citation could be predicted from the increased production. This increases the likelihood that important papers could surface elsewhere.

"it was just dull of unsupported claims." Thread win, unsupported claims are indeed dull all over! (Produced by dull minds, dulling readers.)

@ johanfprins: Solvay 1927 is accepted mainstream. Which makes us suspect you are one of the later crackpots.

Lucky too, since while realism is build into every mechanics (in quantum mechanics as observation-observables), the then "scientific realist" were ideologues. Realism won.

"It shows you again what a criminal liar you are."

Whoa! He is trying to help, and you label him criminal!? Lack of ("common") sense is the most predictive factor behind getting papers refused, you know.

And that is all I will say on this, seeing how the thread is (nonsensically, I note) trolled by you.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2012
@ Doug Huffman: "politicized"? Data, or it didn't happen.

@ natello: Aether is rejected by observation, so there is no "AW Theory". Theories predicts observation, they can't reject them.

@ Lex Talonis: If Lancette takes speculative papers, they would want some observation to speculate over. I assume that is lacking.

Compare with "the Moon is green cheese" before spectroscopy et cetera.
ValeriaT
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2012
What I am saying is that for 10 years I could not get it publisked..
But you published it: you wrote a book and you wrote a ArXiv articles. Many string theorists have no better publication support than just you. Your problem is, you're asking not for publishing, but for RECOGNITION of your publications, which is different story, not directly related to the censorship of ideas.

Whereas I do appreciate your experimental work in the field of superconductors, your theoretical insights about quantum mechanics are self-contradicting and naive and they don't deserve a deeper attention. Which is a problem, because this rather deserved ignorance is expanding even to the experimental findings, which are of much higher practical significance. It's not the first case in the history,when the brilliant insights were ignored just because of poor experimental work or vice-versa: the fundamental experiments were dismissed just with respect to widespread recognition of their authors as a crackpot
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2012
æther is rejected by observation, so there is no "AW Theory". Theories predicts observation, they can't reject them.
Dense æther theory was proposed with Oliver Lodge in 1904 and in many his later books, which were never opposed with mainstream physics, rejected the less. They were simply ignored as a whole. The Oliver Lodge's dense æther model has nothing very much to do with older thin/sparse æther concepts, which were indeed falsified with Michelson-Morley experiments and many other experiments later. Actually, as I explained many times here, the sparse gas could never work as a luminiferous æether even at the trivial conceptual level, because it cannot mediate the energetic waves (X-ray, gamma rays). Every gas must be of higher energy density, then the waves, which such gas is supposed to mediate. You cannot mediate the gamma rays with some sparse gas with minute effects.
Jotaf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2012
I am appalled by the name-calling and must agree that it only hurts your case. When half your arguments appeal to emotion and every paragraph includes 2 or 3 insults, it's hard to call yourself an objective scientist, no matter how unfair you think the reviewers/editors were. I also must laud AA for not responding in kind. In short, you should really reconsider your "angry" stance and try to find better ways to make your case.

Back on topic, how is it that you found a different solution than Dirac? It is a mathematical proof. There are only 2 ways this can be true: either you have different assumptions -- in which case he's not wrong, both are mathematically correct but only experiment can tell which one corresponds to reality; or he has a mathematical error -- which is near impossible since this proof has been scrutinized over and over again over the years, and it is your task to point out exactly at what point does he make a mistake.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2012
@ johanfprins: Solvay 1927 is accepted mainstream.
Which means it cannot be wrong?
the then "scientific realist" were ideologues. Realism won.
I suppose you are referring to Einstein, Schroedinger and de Broglie? They were the only sane people at that conference!

"It shows you again what a criminal liar you are."

Whoa! He is trying to help, and you label him criminal!?


Where was he trying to help?
Lack of ("common") sense is the most predictive factor behind getting papers refused, you know.


Can you prove this? I doubt it: It says very little about you "common sense". You should not post about common sense when it is obvious that you have none.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2012

@ Lex Talonis: If Lancette takes speculative papers, they would want some observation to speculate over. I assume that is lacking.
YOU ASSUME! What a real crackpot you are! If people claim that they have been "done in", a person with integrity will first ask for ALL the information before ASSUMING. Jesus Christ, out of which dung heap did you crawl?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2012
What I am saying is that for 10 years I could not get it publisked..
But you published it: you wrote a book and you wrote a ArXiv articles.
Another example of how dishonest you are: You know just as well as I do that the mainstream propaganda is that Arxive and books should not be consisidered as "real physics" since it has not been "peer reviewed".

And what is wrong with recognition? If YOU did not want recognition, why are you boring the hell out of us all, by pasting the same crap time and again without giving any mathematical proof other than a duck swimming on a pond? And then when I do give mathematical proof for my ideas, refusing to respond.

Whereas I do appreciate your experimental work in the field of superconductors, your theoretical insights about quantum mechanics are self-contradicting and naive and they don't deserve a deeper attention.
Well if you are correct, why do you not respond when I am using equations and asking you questions?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2012
æther is rejected by observation, so there is no "AW Theory". Theories predicts observation, they can't reject them.
Dense æther theory was proposed with Oliver Lodge in 1904 and in many his later books, which were never opposed with mainstream physics, rejected the less. They were simply ignored as a whole. The Oliver Lodge's dense æther model has nothing very much to do with older thin/sparse æther concepts, which were indeed falsified with Michelson-Morley experiments and many other experiments later. Actually, as I explained many times here, the sparse gas could never work as a luminiferous æether even at the trivial conceptual level, because it cannot mediate the energetic waves (X-ray, gamma rays). Every gas must be of higher energy density, then the waves, which such gas is supposed to mediate. You cannot mediate the gamma rays with some sparse gas with minute effects.


And This obvious crackpot wants to question my knowledge of QM: God help us!
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2012
I do that the mainstream propaganda is that Arxive and books should not be considered as "real physics" since it has not been "peer reviewed".
I indeed know about it, but you shouldn't forget, under which article we are just discussing it. The influence of peer-reviewed journals really declines, today even some blogs are accepted as a relevant form of publication and as such cited in the same way, like the articles in mainstream press. After all, did you get your experimental results published in mainstream journal - or not? You even got a recognition in popular science journal for it. Such a recognition is not natural thing for many way more significant physicists: many of them are spending whole their life without such an article in popular journal. Their work is not less difficult or even significant for it - it's just too specialized for being recognized
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2012
Back on topic,
Your pompous patronisation caused me just now to vomit!
how is it that you found a different solution than Dirac? It is a mathematical proof.
No it is not: Dirac's mathematics is suspect (even Pauli stated this)
There are only 2 ways this can be true: either you have different assumptions --
I do not have to make different assumptions or use suspect matrices and Clifford algebra; my derivation is straight-forward using every-day mathematics.
and it is your task to point out exactly at what point does he make a mistake.

And that is exactly what I am doing, but cannot get it published. Since Dirac has been scrutinized by many over many years
it should be easy for an editor like Garido, who is feted as one of the upcoming young physicists to point out where my mathematics is wrong. Why does he refuse to do this? I can tell you why: He dares not; he is too dishonest to accept that QFT is wrong! Too much money involved.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2012
I indeed know about it, but you shouldn't forget.. The influence of peer-reviewed journals really declines, today even some blogs are accepted as a relevant form of publication
Very rarely: Only in the cases where these bloggs are those of mainstream scientits.
After all, did you get your experimental results published in http://www.iop.or...18/3/319 for it. Such a recognition is not natural thing for many way more significant physicists: many of them are spending whole their life without such an article in popular journal.


Soon after that Marshall Stoneham FRS, phoned everybody and informed them not to publish any more of my manuscripts. He also prevented me from speaking at a Royal Society discussion meeting in London in 2007. Fortunately this bigot since died. I jumped with joy! But his death has not solved my problem yet. I know I will break through one day, and in the interest of physics I will be unforgiving!
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2012
What is your interest in this anyway?


Read my first comment to you. Slowly.

out of which dung heap did you crawl

You should not post about common sense when it is obvious that you have none


Ad-homs. The perfect means by which to bring people to your side.

And This obvious crackpot wants to question my knowledge of QM: God help us!


Wow. Pot, meet kettle. He is trying the same thing as you--presenting controversal theory to laymen on a website. That he is obviously far less knowledgable than you, makes you the worse. At least he doesn't spout vitriol at his detractors.

Ok, troll away, I'm done with you.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2012
Ok, troll away, I'm done with you.

Im hop youn stick to this promise since you are the troll: I can even smell your halitoses!
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2012
I know I will break through one day, and in the interest of physics I will be unforgiving!
I wish you success regarding your finding of high temperature superconductivity - but with respect to your ideas about QM I'm rather skeptical about it. You're spewing too much BS about it, not to say about rather "challenging" personality of yours. You may get recognized like Fred Zwicky - i.e. even after fifty-sixty years after your death quite easily with your approach. Moral victory will indeed remain yours, but I still consider it as a somewhat suboptimal approach.
Egleton
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2012
Thank you to all who contributed constructively to this article. I think that I will be referencing it on the web.
Most interesting.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.