Talk:Progress in Physics

message: I suspected that editing this page might open a can of worms!  There are a few points I would like to make, in support of why I reverted Danko's changes.  
First, Danko should probably not be editing the page, for the same reason that congressional staffers are not allowed to edit their employer's page, individuals are not allowed to edit their own pages, etc.--a conflict of interest.  Although it is true I am part of the commercialized scientific establishment, and therefore (according to PP) have inherent bias, I hadn't heard about PP until several days ago, and I certainly have no particularly strong feelings for or against it.
Second, Danko made the comment that people should read the declaration and interpret it for themselves.  Ideally, yes; but the whole point of an encylcopedia is to summarize primary sources.  Personally, I don't think the quote is taken out of context; the context of the declaration is much the same as the quote.
Third, I believe it can be reasonably objectively stated that Art's version was more NPOV than Danko's.  There was not a single word in anything that I or Art wrote that could only be interpreted negatively ("unorthodox" is not a synonym for "bad"!). Ckerr 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Ckerr, IF you are biased as part of the commercialized science, so I should be classified as commercialized scientist too, as I am in academic position at Kanazawa University [check my profile]. However, I think that even IF I am part of the commercialized and corrupted system, I CAN VOICE MY OPINION that all this is WRONG, and soon or later must stop. Concerning the excerpt, yes, it is out of context, the Declaration contains total of 12 articles, so there is word against "taking awards and corruptions when publishing, or peer-reviewing papers" [for peer-reviewers], there is article that research advisors, should have consultatory role, and NOT impose their own ideas on the PhD students that they patronize, also there is word AGAINST inserting co-authors never contributed - yes, this is 80% practice of all published work, most of the co-authors have never heard of what is going on in the paper at first place, and last but not least, there is word against nuclear weapons, and that scientist IF forced to work for such agenda, THEN they are morally responsible to RUIN the development of such weapons, and there is article that "for voicing of your free opinion as human" the institutions should NOT be able to fire you from the academic institution. This is so because you have this freedom of speech as basic human right, they should fire you ONLY IF you are incompetent researcher, etc. i.e. ONLY on scientific grounds. I am NOT biased, but you want to quote about the Declaration, please open new Wiki article, and then please present unbiased view of the basic principles stated in the declaration. Now, Art uses his subtle manipulations, to derogate the PP journal, as on another page he included his/yours? original thought that conveys BAD meaning i.e. "This journal PRIDES itself as opposing the orthodox views" as IF implying that only crackpots publish in PP. Let us be honest, and be objective. I don't mind being reverted, but then, I wish to expand the whole article and include citations on other MUCH MORE important points, than the mentioned "out of context" passage. The "orthodox" is synonymous to ALL this corruption, supression, and the CONTEXT of this "orthodoxy" should be understood from the Declaration only! "Orthodox" is metaphor used by prof. Rabounski, to ridicule the current corruption in academic circles! If we are honest scientist we should NOT "put our heads in the sand". Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: p.s. In the whole Declaration "orthodox" is metaphor, so the quotation literally is out of context. So I would like to insert footnote, that in the original text "orthodox" stands for academic corruption, unethical behjavior by peer-reviewer, pseudo-coauthorship, etc. etc. I believe this clarifies sufficiently my thesis. It should be understood literally, "orthodox" has NOT its common-sense meaning [whatever that may be]. Danko Georgiev MD 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: The journal describes itself as being peer-reviewed. (see http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/rules.html)
However, all the articles I checked (quite a few) had an extremely small delay between submission and acceptance dates.  There is no way that the papers are being reviewed by external referees.  Therefore, I propose deleting peer-reviewed from the page (or else saying that the journal describes itself as being peer-reviewed but that this appears not to be the case).  comments? Timb66 03:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not all papers are with short peer-review period. By the way, the fact that one loses 2 years for peer-reviewing is NOT good criterion either. Simply nobody cares to read the manuscript, and finally because of various reasons such as affiliation of authors, vested interests, etc. papers get published - such examples can be provided from various physical journals, with the published paper being obvious nonsense. Don't forget the Bogdanoff affair. The peer-review period does not adequately represent the quality of peer-reviewing. I have myself performed the function of peer-reviewer and my delays with comments were usually in couple of days [up to 5]. So it depends on the quality of the peer-reviewer and whether he understands the topic of the submitted article. Will you claim that I as peer-reviewer am not doing my job correctly? And last but not least, as I personally have such inside information some notable professor being peer-reviewer who returns the paper of 30 days, does actually peer review it all the time - he does the job for no more than couple of hours at the end of 30 day period, the rest of the time, the manuscript waits somewhere on a shelf. Danko Georgiev MD 05:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Note also that some authors thank the editorial board members for useful discussions and suggestions. Obviously the editorial board members are acquainted with the manuscripts long before their "final submission". This seems to explain why appearent peer-review time is shorter than actually it is. Danko Georgiev MD 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Timb66, please feel free to ask personally the Editor-In-Chief for how the peer-reviewing proceeds. Any personal opinion like mine or yours is just "opinion" and does not deserve to be included in encyclopedia. I have seen that some of the last posted online papers have peer-reviewing of more than 1 month. Also, most of papers are on relativity and cosmology [Big Bang one], and be aware that the Editor-In-Chief has published advanced textbooks on relativity. I don't think there is evidence the journal is not peer-reviewed. Danko Georgiev MD 07:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: At this point, I'm not happy to let it stand.  Unless you can quote from the web site a statement that it's peer reviewed, it has to go.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Changed my mind.  It's still probably not a WP:RS, but it claims to be peer-reviewed.  Added a cite to the lead, and I'll let it go, for the moment. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Removal of the link requires elimination of the statement that it's peer-reviewed, because it's not plausible that "alternative" journals are peer-reviewed.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See, for example, Journal of Scientific Exploration for an alternative statement on peer review.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Rubin, sorry but "ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology" ARE NOT SCIENCE - I target here your irrelevant pointing to Journal of Scientific Exploration!!! Read carefully the first section on my talk page. Let us NOT confuse science and pseudoscience. The PP journal is not alternative in sense "journal for idiots, and frauds", it says that it will publish mathematical models that are not necessary to be accepted by mainstream science. Please be sure you understand the BIG difference between fringe science and pseudoscience. At the time when Einstein published in 1905 his special relativity, this was "fringe" i.e. unlikely according to the mass of authorities. In 1916, after experiment confirmed GR, relativity became "mainstream". FRINGE SCIENCE CAN BECOME MAINSTREAM, BUT PSEUDOSCIENCE CAN NEVER BECOME MAINSTREAM BECAUSE IT IS NOT SCIENCE AT FIRST PLACE!!! I hope now you will stop this farce, and do NOT push extreme views. I suspect Smarandache's name is the main "target" but Smarandache is scientist, and not idiot. I do not support your speculations in the main article on PP. regards, Danko Georgiev MD 10:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer-reviewed?

message: I don't think the article needs links to all the translations.  There are links from the English version to all the other ones. Timb66 09:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I changed it. (And provided a hint in the footnote.) --Art Carlson 10:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Danko Georgiev MD 09:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for links to translation of "Declaration of Academic Freedom"? 

message: This journal is absolute BULLSHIT. Please do not take it seriously. Consider it The Onion of the physics world. Given that our lives are so short and fleeting, I can't believe actual human beings have wasted their valuable time creating such gibberish. It's almost a crime. Anyway, feel free to expand the article. I will not add any of my diatribe to the actual article because I don't have a source (unless I decide to write an op-ed piece about this). 129.162.1.41 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above posted anonymous edit is added from someone living in San Antonio, Texas, USA. Just provide some info about the anonymous user. Danko Georgiev MD 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To anyone reading this article wondering about Progress in Physics ... 

message: Copied from the article page: Highly biased article, which does not present official statement of PP, but rather reflects personal reading of Declaration of Scientific Freedom by some of the wiki-editors. PP is 2 years old journal, and does not need Wikipedia entry on its own, as Wikipedia does not contain articles on every recently opened peer-reviewed journal. If in the next years PP gains some official reputation status, it may be again covered in Wikipedia.
Danko Georgiev MD 04:55, 14 July 2007 
I vote against deletion. The original article was clearly put here by someone closely associated with the journal.  It has since been edited to be less biased and is now quite good, in my view.  This journal is notable because of its unusual "Declaration of Scientific Freedom" and as such, deserves a Wiki page, whether or not it ever "gains some official reputation status".  Timb66 08:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Timb66, Several lines above your post such a comment appeared "This journal is absolute BULLSHIT. Please do not take it seriously." I have tried to censor the "BULLSHIT" because it contains the word "SHIT" but User:Mathsci reverted my censorship. Obviously too many editors, want to attach the word "SHIT" and thus I think deletion is necessary, so they don't have where to spit. This is not yellow press magazine where one must spit over the journals, if you want to keep the entry, you should write a much more positive comment, and saying "this journal is notable necause of his Declaration" but not say "this is alternative "SHIT" journal .." because of this declaration. As most wikieditors are BIASED and don't make difference between these two, I vote for deletion. Danko Georgiev MD 10:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Timb66, I think if the article is to be considered for deletion it must also have an entry on WP:AfD. The three step process is described here. I would vote STRONG KEEP. --Mathsci 11:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the article saved me from reading a likely nonsense paper, because I checked Wikipedia on the Journal before. Please keep the page. Peter.steier (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: May I second Arthur Rubin's revert. We have a wikipedia vandal in our midst. --Mathsci 10:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. 133.28.19.** = cf5.kanazawa-u.ac.jp = Doctor Georgiev. --Mathsci 10:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP vandal

message: It was decided by consensus in the AfD that this article should only be kept if it was made abundantly clear that this journal dealt with fringe science and pseudophysics. That is why the categories are present. Asking for "secondary sources" stating this is disingenuous, disruptive and trollish. The fact that banned authors from the Cornell arXiv like Carlos Castro and Steven J. Crothers contribute and are even editors is a clear indication of the nature of the journal. The "statement of purpose" cited in the article also makes this clear: it is inflammatory and smacks of conspiracy theory. An inflammatory article by Danko Georgiev, with no formal training in physics, was refuted by the eminent physicist Bill Unruh in the same journal. As an example of the explicit rejection of accepted mainstream physics and the non-standard inflammatory tone, here is the summary of an article called "A brief history of black holes" by Steven J. Crothers, who according to his own accounts was expelled from a Ph.D. programme in the University of New South Wales:
"Neither the layman nor the specialist, in general, has any knowledge of the historical circumstances underlying the genesis of the idea of the black hole. Essentially, almost all and sundry simply take for granted the unsubstantiated allegations of some ostentatious minority of the relativists. Unfortunately, the minority has been rather careless with the truth and is quite averse to having its claims corrected, notwithstanding the documentary evidence on the historical record. Furthermore, not a few of that vainglorious and disingenuous coterie, particularly amongst those of some notoriety, attempt to dismiss the testimony of the literature with contempt, and even deliberate falsehoods, claiming that history is of no importance. The historical record clearly demonstrates that the black hole has been conjured up by combination of confusion, superstition and ineptitude, and is sustained by widespread suppression of facts, both physical and theoretical. The following essay provides a brief but accurate account of events, verifiable by reference to the original papers, by which the scandalous manipulation of both scientific and public opinion is revealed."
Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fringe science and pseudophysics

message: Only material from  verifiable sources can be added to this article. Otherwise it counts as WP:OR. Some of the material added seems potentially libellous. The statement by the editors describes the journal as an alternative to other mainstream journals; it does not describe itself as a fringe journal. Some of its articles can be identified as fringe physics, for example the article cited above. The correspondence between Gerhard Bruhn and Rabounski can be added as an external link, but cannot be used as a source for the article, let alone the vastly exaggerated summary included in the text. Mathsci (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are from G.Bruhm at the University of Darmstadt: http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/toRabounski030508.html. If you feel so strongly about Rabounski being libelled by the page, at least leave the external links alone. Also, the journal has already been included in the list of fringe journals, so you should leave the label at the beginning of the article alone. DS1000 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Bruhm seems to have reprinted E-mail from the editor without explicit permission.  I have no objections to the external links, but they don't directly support your assertion, even if they were not published solely by Dr. Bruhm, and so, per WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB, cannot be used to support an assertion about the editor, a (presumably) living person.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by [[User:DS1000]]

message: In addition to the existing over-reliance on primary sources template, I'm adding the self-published sources template as while self published sources could be appropriate in this context, so long as they were in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF, the ones here appear both unduly self-serving and the basis for much of the information in the article.Darthkayak (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Published Sources