Journal of Suppressed Science:Instructions for reviewers

==Review Criteria==
Review criteria for Journal of Suppressed Science are more stringent and reliable than the standard of “general acceptance” used in other peer review processes.
There are two social institutions, the academic and judicial systems, that must distinguish science from pseudoscience for vital purposes requiring determination of the truth. The academic system has relied upon general acceptance peer review to determine scientific truth for many purposes, including grant fund allocations, accepting professional journal publication submissions, and deciding who receives advance degrees.
Beginning with Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) the judicial system formally recognized peer review in the form of "general acceptance" by members of a discipline as the criteria for determining scientific truth for legal purposes. Over the intervening decades since 1923, courts gradually recognized that peer review based "general acceptance" had flaws. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. Sup. Crt. 1993) the United States Supreme Court formally recognized and adopted a more objective set of criteria for determining scientific truth than peer review based "general acceptance." The Court stated that peer review could be considered, but should not be the sole determinant.
The academic system has several dirty little secrets. All facts, ideas and research of equal validity are not treated equally when it comes to publication and funding. Facts and research that contradict "science" upon which economic interests and careers rely are falsely discredited or simply ignored. A primary flaw with peer review is that it is subject to corruption. The manner in which the academic system functions is one of the last holdovers from the guild system of the Middle Ages.
Under the peer review process, submissions are sent to selected members of a review panel known only to the editor. Often the editor can engineer rejection of a submission by selecting panel members known to be hostile to the theory or author. (Despite an alleged blind submission review process, it is not that difficult for the identity of the author to be determined or disclosed.) In addition, ideas or research generally inconsistent with accepted dogma or orthodoxy are rejected out of hand. Some scientists, like Darwinist biologists and anthropologists, are as afflicted with faith-based reality models as the most hard-headed creationist Christian fundamentalists with whom they are currently in conflict.
Another mechanism used to bury inconvenient information is to hold submissions without making a decision. Once submitted to a journal, an article can not be submitted elsewhere unless rejected or withdrawn.
An even more dangerous threat to the free flow of information through professional journals is the unknown number of editors and reviewers that have been recruited by United States intelligence agencies to block and divert information the respective agencies do not want to see in the public domain.
For these reasons, publication review criteria for ‘’Journal of Suppressed Science” are derived from judicial science evidentiary admission standards. These criteria are designed to be more objective and transparent than the anonymous peer review process. Submissions must meet standards that should allow any reader to judge its scientific merits and should expedite respective submissions published being recognized as evidence by the judicial system.
The overall criteria are the Popperian standards of testability, falsifiability, refutability and other elements of the Daubert Standard adopted by the United States Supreme Court. Authors should also refer to the standards set forth for compliance with the Federal Data Quality Act.
Submissions citing data produced by science fraud or organized crime methods and procedures in a discipline or professions will be removed. For an inventory of known science fraud and organized crime methods and procedures see [Compendium of Documentation of Organized Crime Methods and Procedures Integrated into State and Federal Agencies for the Purpose of Political and Economic Exploitation of Children and Families Through State and Federal Child Protection, Mental Health, and Social Work Systems].
Submissions using either traditional experimental hypothesis testing or nonexperimental paired contradictory hypotheses testing are encouraged. 
Contradictory hypotheses have the logical properties that both can not be true and both can not be false. It is a method advisable for analyzing evidence in situations where experiments are not possible. Since both can not be true and both can not be false, if evidence is put forth that supports both contradictory hypotheses, you immediately know that one set of evidence is false. Paired contradictory hypotheses testing has the benefit of rendering deception and evidence falsification transparent.
Submissions containing any of the following logical fallacies will also be removed if the fallacies are not corrected in a timely manner:
I. Fallacies of Relevance
 A. Appeal to Authority
 B. Appeal to Ignorance
 C. Appeal to Emotion
II. Fallacies of Presumption
 A. Overlooking the Facts
 1. Sweeping Generalization
 2. Hasty Generalization
 3. Bifurcation
 B. Evading the Facts
 1. Begging the Question
 2. Question-Begging Epithets
 3. Complex Question
 4. Special Pleading
 C. Distorting the Facts
 1. False Analogy
 2. False Cause
 3. Irrelevant Thesis
For those contemplating reviewing submissions to Journal for Suppressed Science, if you do not know how to use these intellectual tools, please learn how to use them and do not substitute your emotional, economic, political, or other personal biases as standards for editing content.