Top science problems solved in top e-journal

[questfortruth]

I was the client of viXra for many long years, but now after 2-month review, my results on top problems (including the Dark Matter and Dark Energy and violation of energy-momentum conservation) is published in a reputable academic place:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=3670770

Social Science Research Network - Wikipedia

The results are describing the Theology as well, for the invisible matter - the concept I talk about is not only the Dark Matter but can be material of angels and UFO. The UFO appears and disappears - making the transition between visible and invisible states.

 

[RabbiO]

I was the client of viXra for many long years, but now after 2-month review, my results on top problems (including the Dark Matter and Dark Energy and violation of energy-momentum conservation) is published in a reputable academic place:

Gravity Law without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks by Dmitri Martila :: SSRN

Social Science Research Network - Wikipedia

The results are describing the Theology as well, for the invisible matter - the concept I talk about is not only the Dark Matter but can be material of angels and UFO. The UFO appears and disappears - making the transition between visible and invisible states.

My understanding is that SSRN is an open repository, not a peer reviewed journal.

 

[questfortruth]

My understanding is that SSRN is an open repository, not a peer reviewed journal.

The SSRN, formerly known as Social Science Research Network, is both a repository for preprints and international journal devoted to the rapid dissemination of scholarly research in the social sciences and humanities and more. Elsevier bought SSRN from Social Science Electronic Publishing Inc. in May 2016.[1]

Producer Elsevier
History 1994 to present
Languages English

 

[shunyadragon]

The SSRN, formerly known as Social Science Research Network, is both a repository for preprints and international journal devoted to the rapid dissemination of scholarly research in the social sciences and humanities and more. Elsevier bought SSRN from Social Science Electronic Publishing Inc. in May 2016.[1]

Producer Elsevier
History 1994 to present
Languages English

Still . . . not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Anyone can post there without any scientific peer review. Actually without any review whatsoever.

Try getting it published in NATURE.

 

[questfortruth]

Still . . . not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Anyone can post there without any scientific peer review. Actually without any review whatsoever.

Try getting it published in NATURE.

It was reviewed for 2 months, it is Elsevier!!!

 

[questfortruth]

thumbs up for your unique post. there is nothing like this kind of amazing and unique posts on the entire forum.

My fans, reread it. There is a video now.

 

[questfortruth]

Still . . . not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Anyone can post there without any scientific peer review. Actually without any review whatsoever.

Try getting it published in NATURE.

 

[shunyadragon]

It was reviewed for 2 months, it is Elsevier!!!

Elsevier is a for profit pay to publish publishing company, and not scientists reviewing articles for submission. They are notorious for putting articles behind a firewall and charging for access where they should have open access. They do computer review for plagiarism and fraud.

As I said, 'Try to get published in NATURE.'

 

[shunyadragon]

Bogus anti-science video, suites your anti-science agenda.

Elsevier is a for profit pay to publish publishing company, and not scientists reviewing articles for submission. They are notorious for putting articles behind a firewall and charging for access where they should have open access. They do computer review for plagiarism and fraud.

As I said, 'Try to get published in NATURE.'

 

[icehorse]

One of the first things I found concerning SSRN:

SSRN does not provide peer review for papers in the eLibrary. An author may submit a paper that is not scholarly - for example, an editorial or opinion paper. ... The private papers are, however, searchable by external search engines (e.g. Google) if the author included them on their author page.

 

[questfortruth]

Bogus anti-science video, suites your anti-science agenda.

Elsevier is a for profit pay to publish publishing company, and not scientists reviewing articles for submission. They are notorious for putting articles behind a firewall and charging for access where they should have open access. They do computer review for plagiarism and fraud.

As I said, 'Try to get published in NATURE.'

One of the first things I found concerning SSRN:

The fact is: somebody looked at the paper and found out, that it is not stupid. Why? Because it took 2 months! The paper without any review would be published the same day. But it took 2 months!

 

[icehorse]

The fact is: somebody looked at the paper and found out, that it is not stupid.

But I think...

 

[shunyadragon]

Bogus anti-science video, suites your anti-science agenda.

Elsevier is a for profit pay to publish publishing company, and not scientists reviewing articles for submission. They are notorious for putting articles behind a firewall and charging for access where they should have open access. They do computer review for plagiarism and fraud.

As I said, 'Try to get published in NATURE.'



The fact is: somebody looked at the paper and found out, that it is not stupid. Why? Because it took 2 months! The paper without any review would be published the same day. But it took 2 months!

Eisvier publishes a great deal of peer reviewed articles from legitimate science journals directly and resales them and they should be open source.. Actually 2 months is not sufficient review time for a scientific journal, and Eisevier does not do a scientific review when you pay publish. If you were published in a legitimate science journal you would be immediately be available. Nonetheless Eisevier in and of itself is Not a scientific journal.

The following are legitimate concerns of Eisevier: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier–and think you shouldn’t either

"Here’s a list of just some of the shady things Elsevier has been previously caught doing–and none of which, as far as I know, the company contests at this point:

• They used to organize arms trade fairs, until a bunch of academics complained that a scholarly publisher probably shouldn’t be in the arms trade, at which point they sold that division off;
• In 2009, they were caught for having created and sold half a dozen entire fake journals to pharmaceutical companies (e.g., Merck), so that those companies could fill the pages of the journals, issue after issue, with reprinted articles that cast a positive light on their drugs;
• They regularly sell access to articles they don’t own, including articles licensed for non-commercial use–in clear contravention of copyright law, and despite repeated observations by academics that this kind of thing should not be technically difficult to stop if Elsevier actually wanted it to stop;
• Their pricing model is based around the concept of the “Big Deal”: Elsevier (and, to be fair, most other major publishers) forces universities to pay for huge numbers of their journals at once by pricing individual journals prohibitively, ensuring that institutions can’t order only the journals they think they’ll actually use (this practice is very much like the “bundling” exercised by the cable TV industry); they also bar customers from revealing how much they paid for access, and freedom-of-information requests reveal enormous heterogeneity across universities, often at costs that are prohibitive to libraries;
• They recently bought the SSRN preprint repository, and after promising to uphold SSRN’s existing operating procedures, almost immediately began to remove articles that were legally deposited on the service, but competed with “official” versions published elsewhere;
• They have repeatedly spurned requests from the editorial boards of their journals to lower journal pricing, decrease open access fees, or make journals open access; this has resulted in several editorial boards abandoning the Elsevier platform wholesale and moving their operation elsewhere (Lingua being perhaps the best-known example)–often taking large communities with them;
• Perhaps most importantly (at least in my view), they actively lobbied the US government against open access mandates, making multiple donations to the congressional sponsors of a bill called the Research Works Act that would have resulted in the elimination of the current law mandating deposition of all US government-funded scientific works in public repositories within 12 months after publication.

The pattern in these cases is almost always the same: Elsevier does something that directly works against the scientific community’s best interests (and in some cases, also the law), and then, when it gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar, it apologizes and fixes the problem (well, at least to some degree; they somehow can’t seem to stop selling OA-licensed articles, because it is apparently very difficult for a multibillion dollar company to screen the papers that appear on its websites). A few months later, another scandal comes to light, and then the cycle repeats.

Elsevier is, of course, a large company, and one could reasonably chalk one or two of the above actions down to poor management or bad judgment. But there’s a point at which the belief that this kind of thing is just an unfortunate accident–as opposed to an integral part of the business model–becomes very difficult to sustain. In my case, I was aware of a number of the above practices before I signed The Cost of Knowledge pledge; for me, the straw that broke the camel’s back was Elsevier’s unabashed support of the Research Works Act. While I certainly don’t expect any corporation (for-profit or otherwise) to actively go out and sabotage its own financial interests, most organizations seem to know better than to publicly lobby for laws that would actively and unequivocally hurt the primary constituency they make their money off of. While Elsevier wasn’t alone in its support of the RWA, it’s notable that many for-profit (and most non-profit) publishers explicitly expressed their opposition to the bill (e.g., MIT Press, Nature Publishing Group, and the AAAS). To my mind, there wasn’t (and isn’t) any reason to support a company that, on top of arms sales, fake journals, and copyright violations, thinks it’s okay to lobby the government to make it harder for taxpayers to access the results of publicly-funded research that’s generated and reviewed at no cost to Elsevier itself. So I didn’t, and still don’t."

 

[shunyadragon]

The fact is: somebody looked at the paper and found out, that it is not stupid. Why? Because it took 2 months! The paper without any review would be published the same day. But it took 2 months!

So what? Yes, there is likely more than one person that agrees with you in the world. About as meaningful as a 'like' on your facebook page.

 

[questfortruth]

But I think...

The arXiv has now links to viXra. The Elsevier took the SSRN. Thus, I am closer to the goal. But the world is going nuts.

 

[icehorse]

But the world is going nuts.

These papers of yours are not helping, they are hurting.

You want to tackle hard problems? Great, start by learning math and science.

 

[questfortruth]

These papers of yours are not helping, they are hurting.

 

[ecco]

But the world is going nuts.

Uh huh. shunyadragon put a very thorough face on your "publisher" - We'll house anything on our website.


But, let's take a very brief look at your work from your abstract:

My testable prediction that they will never find weakly interacting Dark Matter particles is well-realized up to today;​

That's interesting. You state that "they will never find" is a "testable prediction".

How is that a "testable prediction"? How can you make an assertion using the word "never" and expect to be taken seriously?

Your quoted comment is, by itself, enough evidence of ineptitude / insincerity to deter any serious scientist from reading any further.



However, I (and others who have commented) may be wrong. Perhaps an actual scientist will take the time to read and review your work. Please let us know when that happens.

 

[shunyadragon]

Uh huh. shunyadragon put a very thorough face on your "publisher" - We'll house anything on our website.


But, let's take a very brief look at your work from your abstract:

My testable prediction that they will never find weakly interacting Dark Matter particles is well-realized up to today;​

That's interesting. You state that "they will never find" is a "testable prediction".

How is that a "testable prediction"? How can you make an assertion using the word "never" and expect to be taken seriously?

Your quoted comment is, by itself, enough evidence of ineptitude / insincerity to deter any serious scientist from reading any further.



However, I (and others who have commented) may be wrong. Perhaps an actual scientist will take the time to read and review your work. Please let us know when that happens.

Very good observation, because scientific hypothesis and theories cannot falsify negative propositions by definition.

 

[questfortruth]

Very good observation, because scientific hypothesis and theories cannot falsify negative propositions by definition.

Uh huh. shunyadragon put a very thorough face on your "publisher" - We'll house anything on our website.


But, let's take a very brief look at your work from your abstract:

My testable prediction that they will never find weakly interacting Dark Matter particles is well-realized up to today;​

That's interesting. You state that "they will never find" is a "testable prediction".

How is that a "testable prediction"? How can you make an assertion using the word "never" and expect to be taken seriously?

Your quoted comment is, by itself, enough evidence of ineptitude / insincerity to deter any serious scientist from reading any further.



However, I (and others who have commented) may be wrong. Perhaps an actual scientist will take the time to read and review your work. Please let us know when that happens.

Now do review again, but with less peer. Do less peer while doing peer-review.