micky_gta said:
It is not my intention to hijack this thread, but maybe someone knows a bit more. The article referenced above was published in Physics Essays, a journal that is known to be devoted to fringe science. It sometimes (or even often) crosses the border.
The editor is E. Panarella, a guy who did some serious science, but is more widely known for defending cold fusion even after the Fleischmann-Pons hoax and proclaiming some strange (and wrong) effective photon theories. So far, so good (or bad). People might check the journal before submitting there and may find out that the editor is a strange guy. The associate editors are also inknown guys, at least to me. But the editorial board looks different. Some better known names are there with M.O. Scully being the most prominent one one. Might that journal be better than it looks like on first sight?
However, more strange facts occur. Like most of the people presented in that editorial board, Marlan Scully is professor emeritus. It is ok to still associate these people with their universities, but Scully is associated with the university of New Mexico. He has once been associated with that university, but left it for Texas A&M university in 1992. Now one might think that an active member of the editorial board notices the need for an update of the affiliation. Obviously it was nevertheless not updated in the last 20 years. Now the question may arise what these board members actually do.
Their role in Physics Essays is described as follows: "The editorial board members will assist the editor in the formulation of editorial policies. They are scholars from several disciplines of physics, from spectroscopy to quantum mechanics, from electromagnetic theory to astrophysics, from space physics to mathematical methods in physics, from plasma physics to philosophical aspects of physics, from chemical physics to relativity. Their scientific knowledge will be called upon to advise the editor on subjects within their field of knowledge."
To me that sounds like they were asked once whether they think that the formulation of the editorial policies of that journal is fine and then never did anything again, but are listed as "editorial board" because their names sound convincing. Do they even know that they are considered the editorial board of that journal? Does anyone know whether these people are all really interested in that journal or whether some just got scammed into giving their name away for a dubious journal?
I just posted my question here because a second-hand reference to that journal occurred here as one of many links of questionable quality. If the mods think that question should go elsewhere or to a new topic, it is of course fine if my post gets moved or I open a completely new thread.
edit: regarding the link and the article referenced therein, I would like to point out the following paper: Simmons, Joseph P., Nelson, Leif D. and Simonsohn, Uri, False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant (May 23, 2011). Psychological Science, 2011.
It got some media coverage as it "unambiguously" showed using legitimate statistical analysis that listening to the Beatles song “When I’m Sixty-Four” not only makes you feel younger, but indeed actually makes you younger by almost 1.5 years. This is of course nonsense and the authors want to point out that even legitimate analysis can lead to "false positives" and seemingly verify a wrong hypothesis and that one has to look for such false positives very carefully. They also point out some guidelines for reviewers and authors that should minimize the odds of such false positives occurring. I really doubt the authors of or the refereeing process for the above Physics Essays paper followed these guidelines.
