Journals that damage science

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: March 26, 2014

Feierman: If this was such an important article, it would have been published in Science or Nature and not in the obscure journal that published it. 
My comment: This misrepresentation of everything known about problems with biased reviews,which prevent publication of dogma-quashing new information, has been repeatedly addressed in the extant literature and the problems have led to open access publications designed to limit the impact of articles published in Science, Nature, Cell et al. (high impact journals).

How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science

The incentives offered by top journals distort science, just as big bonuses distort banking

Excerpt: “Better papers, the theory goes, are cited more often, so better journals boast higher scores. Yet it is a deeply flawed measure, pursuing which has become an end in itself – and is as damaging to science as the bonus culture is to banking.”

My comment: Feierman’s banker’s mentality represents how the ongoing damage to science is done by people who have learned nothing about the biological basis of behavior during the past 55 years, since Karlson and Luscher showed that the physiology of reproduction in moths is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. As my published works have continued to gain attention during the past two months with 614 views so far this month of Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model, Feierman is forced to denigrate the quality of the publication. And, each time Science publishes anything that attests to how ridiculous Feierman’s claims have always been, see for example: Humans Can Discriminate More than 1 Trillion Olfactory Stimuli, Feierman should be vilified.
Like the editors of journals that damage science, Feierman damages it as moderator of the ISHE’s human ethology yahoo group, by asserting that only the journals that also damage science are the journals that should be read. All other sources for novel claims should be ignored until the claims are no longer novel, but accepted by everyone who has learned anything about the biological basis of behavior during the past 55 years. Feierman has not. He still says things like this: I am absolutely certain that if you showed this statement to any professor of biology or genetics in any accredited university anywhere in the world that 100% of them would say that “Random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts” is a correct and true statement.
The correct and true statement that Humans Can Discriminate More than 1 Trillion Olfactory Stimuli supported by experimental evidence reviewed in the context of Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model, will no doubt be ignored by Feierman as he continue to deny all scientific truth and denigrate publications that publish it and those who dare to challenge his ignorance by providing others with scientific facts.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: