Quantrinas написал(а):
Так это ж какой труд - послать в сто журналов, что бы, может быть, в одном случайно проскочило.
Фпрочем я ошибся. Один журнал с ненулевым импакт-фактором там проскочил: Журнал Medical Hypotheses. У него интересная система рецензирования:
Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach to review: the editor sees his role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer', choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted. The Editor sometimes uses external referees to inform his opinion on a paper, but their role is as an information source and the Editor's choice is final. The papers chosen may contain radical ideas, but may be judged acceptable so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. The authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. From Charlton BG. Peer usage versus peer review BMJ 2007; 335: 451 :- Traditionally, editorial review is the main alternative to peer review. A scientist editor or editorial team applies a sieve, with varying degrees of selectivity, to research submissions. Strictly, this process should not attempt to predict whether ideas and facts are true, because truth can be established only in retrospect. Instead, editorial selection works within constraints of subject matter on the basis of factors such as potential importance and interest, clarity and appropriateness of expression, and broad criteria of scientific plausibility. Even probably untrue papers may be judged worth publishing if they contain aspects (ideas, perspectives, data) that are potentially stimulating to the development of future science.
Может ППГ попробовать в этот журнал написать? Там оценивают только качество текста, принимают любые революционные гипотезы если они качественно написаны. Впрочем, что-то мне подсказывает, что там его гипотеза не пройдет по критерию новизны. Таких умных которые пытались биополем все описать пруд пруди.
