Top 9 reasons I no longer submit publications to peer reviewed journals ... some of the mindless gov paid internet trolls and critics sent to taunt me try to prod me to "submit my work for peer review" ... the reality is that i have peer reviewed papers published in the "respectable science journals" ... oddly enough these same critics collectively have NO papers published in high level astrophysics journals (collectively) ... i was the only member of the Department of Mathematics at Cornell University where i was a faculty member who ever published in the peer review astrophysics journals ... no small accomplishment ... but my publishing career was cut short circa 1981 by back door complaints from the astronomy department at Cornell headed by none other than Carl Sagan (David Duncan Astronomy Chair) which protested my using NASA space probe data to prove the standard NASA theories to be incorrect and replacing them with my own research ... but aside from that let me give you my top 9 list of reasons why i do not submit my work to peer reviewed journals ...

1) why would i submit ground breaking work that has been verified by space probe data to journals refereed by the scientists who are lost in the cave ages with outdated incorrect theories and whom have PhDs in totally incorrect fairy tale science ?

2) the journals take control of the work and publications ... i would have to ask permission to publish and pass on to you my own work ... i am not in a "publish or perish" government supported university or industry position ... i have the largest classroom in the world (hundreds of thousands of people like you all over the world) and i do not read from some outdated text book ... i pay for my own air time ... i do not have sponsors and i do not take donations ... i publish on my own web, have my own publishing house and fund my own research ... why would i want anything to do with a system designed to control science ... and by the way ... if i sold through normal book channels (my books CDs and DVDs are only available on my web page) my books would qualify for the New York Times best seller list ... but that means nothing to me 

3) very little real research is published in peer reviewed journals which have become nothing more than ivory tower clubhouses which rubber stamp publish whatever garbage the clubhouse members toss at it ... peer review really does not happen ...  they do not respond to serious critical objections to their published baloney ... top level research is implemented in reality NOT PUBLISHED in peer review journals 

4) the peer review process is flawed ... although it is necessary to keep out the riff raff of which there is plenty ... the peer review process including the cycle of funding - government top down grants - research driven by top down edict - publication via peer review which is monopolized by the same groups that move and get the government funding for the next year ... the system is flawed by monopoly groups ... some politicians think that by spending more on science it will expand and grow ... scientists today set like squirrels hoping the gov will bequeath them more nuts than they did last year ... with more gov spending the reality is you will just get more of the same and further entrench the power groups that infect an already broken system 

5) Einstein only published 2 papers in peer review journals (both in germany before he came to the USA) and was openly critical of them for many of the same reasons i am giving here ... most real research is conducted in private between scientists ... i always have worked alone and control my own work and its release ... i do not submit for approval of anyone ... i am harder on myself than any entrenched peer referee would ever be ... sorry ivory tower snobs i do not play your games

6) peer reviewed journals are the epitome of  tier 2 science ... my work is understood in the tier 1 circles as the top level of science ... after one of my public presentations regarding my propulsion systems ... a physicist with 35 years experience from the US Navy approached me in private and talked for a while ... he told me everything i was doing was correct and to just continue to do what i am doing 

7) scientists have lost control of their work ...scientists publish within a guided framework ... NONE of them conduct research that they design ... i fully fund and control my work and release what i feel is appropriate for the public ... i have many projects underway in the background and  have begun to release my 11 Mega World Projects which are necessary for the success of the human race ... NONE of this will ever be submitted to peer review journals  

8) when i was on the faculty at Cornell University i submitted a paper to ICARUS the Cornell Space Science journal for which a joker named Joseph Burns was acting editor ... my paper (later published in another journal to establish my priority on the topic entitled "Saturn's Sweeper Moons Predicted" Reprinted in the appendix of my Planet X Comets and Earth Changes book) was rejected by Joe Burns with a letter stating that there was no need to invoke moons to account for the gaps in saturn's rings ... the moons were later verified by Voyager space craft data ... Joe Burns ripped off my idea including terminology and made a career out of being the "sweeper moon expert" at NASA ... all this is documented ... so why would anyone submit an original idea to a peer review journal ???  

9) peer review is like an old man driving slow in the left lane of a crowded freeway ... he has plenty of room in front of him ... he just cannot figure out why all those people are honking and trying to get by him 

NOTE ... the most recent postings that follow are placed at the top of the page ... at a certain point in 2009 i stopped updating this page however the statements remain the same ... the publication "facade" forges on ... daily postings in the popular media never cease promoting the "creeping crud" (copying of my work by standard science) and things such as the news media forcing politically correct science down the unsuspecting public throat ... but all this originates in the "respectable peer reviewed journals"  ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted January 02, 2009

a huge part of the peer review problem is what i call being "compromised" ... subtly ... and without even knowing what is happening to them ... new graduates who become employed by either the government directly or any of its agencies or any of the thousands of companies supported either directly or indirectly by federal funding as well as those entering the university employment system for the first time ... i have spent about half of my career teaching at the university level ... and i saw it repeatedly ... when i go to conferences i see it repeatedly ... young intelligent grads and new hires are sucked into the system and before they know it ... and for the most part VERY FEW ever get a clue ... that they are totally compromised to a system that they must honor and obey ... of course many are beaming with their new success ... totally unaware that there is an entire layer of science above them of which they know nothing ... they are compromised ... for more details listen to my january 01, 2009 radio show archive (go to the main home page and scroll to the bottom for the link to my weekly radio show archives) ... jim mccanney 

On Peer Review ... Posted November 27, 2008

it has been some time since i posted on this sub-page but non-the-less ... there is a vast amount of important relevant information on this sub-page ... my November 27, 2008 Thanksgiving Day Special radio show is VERY IMPORTANT if you want to understand one of the main problems with peer reviewed journals ... there is a need for peer review ... to keep the riff-raff out as there are tons of bad scientific ideas out there ... BUT ... the system of peer review can easily be taken over by groups to protect their turf ... and also be used by oversight groups to limit the information that ultimately gets to the public or even to the scientific community ... so please listen to my radio show of November 27, 2008 return to the main home page and scroll down to the radio archive sub-page and listen to the Thanks Giving Day Special November 27, 2008 radio show ... all shows are 59 minutes long ... jim mccanney 

On Peer Review ... Posted November 22, 2007

recently Comet Holmes exploded into brightness and became an international celestial celebrity ... standard astronomers were speechless as they had no rational explanation ... "hip pocket speculations" filled the news media when my work specifically showed exactly why this occurred ... due to an electrical alignment of the 3 planets Mercury - Venus and Mars with the small comet nucleus ... in the rush for "news" NASA stated that previous measurements of the comet nucleus made by the Hubble Space Telescope found the nucleus to be 2.1 miles across ... i immediately stated that this so called "measurement" was not directly measured ... but must have been made with a brightness measurement and therefore assumed an albedo (reflectivity factor) for the nucleus and of course since it was the NASA dirty snowball guys that were making the measurements ... they assumed a nice snowy white object ... when in reality comet nuclei are known to be the blackest objects in the solar system ... i argued that since the object was black and not white therefore the size of the black nucleus would have to be very much larger to reflect the same amount of light as an assumed white object ... well i now have confirmed all of the details and in fact this is exactly what happened and only someone like myself that questions the dirty snowball comet model and also knows how astronomers make these measurements would know how to logically come to the correct conclusion ... the reality of making a direct measurement with the Hubble Telescope of such an object also bore the same result as it was announced that at the distance to comet holmes ... the hubble resolution was only 33 miles across ... so it could by no means directly measure the comet nucleus of 2.1 miles across ... yes indeed ... the nucleus of comet holmes is far bigger and is growing due to the vast tail accumulation (based on my Plasma Discharge Comet Model) ... relative to peer review ... the NASA result which is totally incorrect is now published in the news media and of course no one there has the savvy to ask the right questions ... and of course there is no peer review or critical analysis by anyone else in the standard scientific community ... so much for peer review ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted March 14, 2007

just a quick posting as my newest book and DVD lecture have been released ... part of being an independent scientist is the ability to self critique my own work and additionally anticipate the questions that would be raised in a peer review ... in the case of the book "Calculate Primes" i had to explain how i examined my mathematical formula and method of calculating the prime numbers and also gave a detailed explanation for posterity of the mental gymnastics that i went through to create the solution and implement it etc etc etc ... there are good reasons for peer review and i did receive many comments from trained professionals in the private release of this information that occurred long ago ... the greatest problem with modern peer review in the astronomy and astrophysics journals is that it is a clubhouse where little if any real peer review occurs for insiders of the club ... and it is invoked with ultimate denial for non-members ... but back to the "Calculate Primes" book DVD combo ... in any release i review my own material as the ultimate statement of my efforts ... that is part of being an independent scientist ... this is where my extensive training comes in ... jim mccanney 

On Peer Review ... Posted January 04, 2007

there is a recurring but augmented issue regarding peer review involving well meaning talk show hosts who are trying to present "science" but play into the hands of the NASA scientists who use these talk show hosts to further their "creeping crud" ... creeping crud is that uncanny trait of NASA scientists to first become outraged and reject science presented in my books and papers ... and then somehow "discover" these same topics ... many time creating new names and spinning it into their "standard science" ... this happened recently this past december when a NASA comet scientist stated in an interview with a talk show personality that ... geeee ... comets may not all have been created at the same time and that they contained super heated particulates that did not fit the standard "dirty snow ball" concept ... the talk show host printed this amazing discovery and accredited the NASA team with this "advancement" ... inexperienced talk show hosts are doing as much damage to the progress of science as the magazines and news papers that mindlessly repeat what NASA scientists say ... and of course without any peer review which includes proper referencing of previously published work ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted October 28, 2006

October 28, 2006 posting ... Albert Einstein ... 1921 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics for his mathematical interpretation of "the photoelectric effect" ... only published one paper in the US peer reviewed journals (Phys. Rev.) after arriving here from germany ... ... prior to that he published 6 papers in peer reviewed journals in germany ... it is very odd that he got the nobel prize for the photoelectric effect when the theory of relativity was published much earlier and was far more important in terms of directions of physics ... he openly opposed the US peer reviewed journal system and spoke openly of this throughout his career ... he communicated his work through private communications to other scientists ... everyone had a view of science and knew what was going on as the scientists communicated ... take for example the work on the atomic bomb ... the advancements were communicated through personal letters and communications ... there were many facets to making the first bombs ... his famous letter to the US president stating that such a bomb was possible came from his knowledge that other countries including germany and italy had the scientists working on this and that it was imperative for the US president to know  what was going on ... he later was a proponent to never use the bomb ... but i digress ... the point here is that the greatest scientist of the 20th century refused to have anything to do with the US peer review journal system ... i am sometimes criticized for not "submitting" my science material to peer reviewed journals ... the word "submit" is most interesting ... as it would allow 1) the standard science "referees" to claim that my material had been "rejected" and then 2) allow them to steal it in due course when the time came "as they discovered it in the proper context of accepted scientific standards" ... and last but not least 3) when you "submit" your material to the peer reviewed journals they end up owning it and you have to then request permission to print it yourself ... the fact is that my two very important peer reviewed papers were published in 1980 and 81 and were the essential ground breaking papers in denouncing the need for dark matter and showing that the galaxies form on an ongoing basis (e.g. there was no big bang) and that the star systems had at most 2 or 3 members when they began ... so all subsequent planets had to be captured (this of course leads into the Plasma Discharge Comet Model and the formation of solar systems from small to large objects ... of course these papers never had time to be published as i was immediately blackballed from further publications) ... my second peer review published paper dealt with the electrical nature of the rings of Saturn and the prediction of "Saturn's sweeper moons" ... a topic that is fully confirmed and accepted today ... yet standard scientists refuse to reference this original paper that was published in a peer reviewed journal while NASA scientists were not even thinking about such things ... so no small wonder that einstein refused to publish in this system ... scientists who defend the peer review system of publication still hold a grudge against einstein in the background and take jabs at him from time to time ... so when in my modern career i refuse to deal with this broken system i am at least in some good company ... when i was at Cornell University i had numerous conversations with a guy who worked there ... Hans Beta who was a good friend of einstein ...Beta told me about the US peer review system ... Beta is the one who referred me to the european peer reviewed journals where the first two of my papers were published (by this time i was in the Mathematics Department and so when you see these papers in the journals they show my affiliation as Cornell University - Department of Mathematics ... i was later told by the chairman of the math department that i was the only cornell mathematics faculty member ever to have papers accepted and published in the astrophysics journals) ... shortly after these first two papers were published there was a tirade of letters and phone calls made that effectively blackballed me from continuing to publish the rest of my work ... some of this unpublished work was soon after published in the Velikovsky peer reviewed journal KRONOS (at the time i was at cornell i did not even know about velikovsky as i had been out of the country for many years) ... luckily these papers stand as a record of my priority in the theoretical discoveries dealing with the electrical nature of the solar system and universe ... today i have chosen to take my information directly to the public in my books and CDs and videos not to mention my weekly radio show ... so at least i can say that i am in good company in ignoring the peer review journals and in continuing my exposure of the broken peer review journal publishing system that does little more than keep the monopolized government supported tier II scientists with a pay check and funding ... jim mccanney 

On Peer Review ... Posted October 06, 2006

October 06, 2006 posting ... in the past few days the nobel committee announced the annual prize for physics ... there were some extremely unusual aspects to this prize announcement ... never before was the nobel prize given for a US government funded NASA overall project (the COBE microwave background explorer satellite launched in 1989) ... from the large number of people that worked on this project selecting just two people ... COBE scientists claimed that "since no one else explained the data ... that there was a measured background microwave radiation ... that this (somehow) "confirmed" the Big Bang ..." ... WOWOWOW ... was this loaded with political innuendos !!!! let me see ??? over 10 years before COBE was launched i had predicted basically the same result but showed that the microwave background radiation was due to the signature of the nebular ion cloud surrounding our sun and that it would be somewhat non-uniform as they later measured (the same type of nebular clouds that were later detected around almost every star as equipment improved over the decades) ... remember that i was thoroughly blackballed from publishing any of my work during these years ... and even if i could ... the dominance of "peer review" by big bang scientists would have blocked any hint of an alternative explanation ... in spite of this i repeatedly told the Big Bang Boys at Goddard and JPL and other places around the globe that they were not seeing the signature of a big bang but were reading the low level heat signature of the "donut cloud" that surrounds our sun and that until they got outside of this area (at least 3 times the distance to Pluto) and made the same measurements ... that they in fact have not proven the big bang at all ... but also in this prize you see what the nobel committee has been skillfully avoiding for years ... any sort of reference to "verifying" the Big Bang cosmology ... seems they have folded to the politics of science ... by the way ... the nobel committee has long been aware of the fact that there is an alternative explanation for the COBE data ... to ignore this is most bizarre ... but in the past year there has been a HUGE political effort by NASA and its entourage of scientists to shore up what i call the "Axioms of Astronomy" (see the "Opening Statement" at the top of my web page for more details) ... they are also well aware that the most basic premise of the Big Bang (the red shift data of stars - galaxies and quasars) has a laboratory verifiable alternative red shift theory (my Induced Electric Dipole Red Shift theory) that says that the red shift of stars - galaxies and quasars is not due to their movement away from us ... but is due to the inherent internal electrical properties of celestial objects undergoing fusion (which by the way includes objects such as small unlit stars like Jupiter and Saturn that have low levels of fusion in their hydrogen atmospheres)... in my files i still have the letters between myself and a great scientist and investigator Halton Arp (as we corresponded in the early 1980's on this topic) who has recorded and holds tons of data showing localized or "associated" galaxies and quasars with very different red shifts ... i had provided the laboratory verifiable theory to explain the red shift data ...  and Arp had the telescope data of actual contradictions of the traditional big bang interpretation of the red shift of stars - galaxies and quasars ... remember that this was years before the COBE satellite was ever on the drawing boards ... entire teams of astro physicists have recently verified and added data to the existing reams of Arp data ... some with high red shift quasars setting in the direct path of lower red shift galaxies !!!!!!!!!!! entire teams of prominent scientists have written letters to US funding agencies complaining about the dominance of the big bang scientists in getting funding and in the administration of telescope and government sponsored equipment time ... so into the night slips the politics of science ... interestingly enough the most resounding reaction i hear from the common man on the street is that science is an outdated boring pursuit and they would rather watch professional sports or have a beer at the local pub ... this prize has done little to raise the excitement level of science ... in fact it has set science into the doldrums for an indeterminable amount of time into the future ... and unfortunately ... when the world wakes up to realize that there never was a big bang ... there will be no way to undo this politically motivated nobel prize of 2006 ... oh and just one last thought ... if i were one of the many scientists who had either worked on COBE at NASA or dealt with Big Bang cosmology ... i would be a bit miffed at the selection of the 2006 prize committee with these particular two members of the overall Big Bang "team" ... of course they can all console themselves that somehow they were a part of the entire program ... but in the long term science has been dealt a serious blow by the 2006 nobel prize selection that should have required that the COBE type of data be retaken beyond the sun's nebular ion cloud to verify that it in fact is from something outside of our own local neighborhood ... this is what true "peer" review would require ... especially something as final and overseeing as the Nobel Prize ... undoing the damage to science that this prize has done may take decades ... jim mccanney

October 05, 2006 posting ... sorry for the lack of postings over the past week ... a research project came of age so to speak and required my undivided attention ... hopefully i will be able to release the information soon ... join me tonight on my show as i talk about the UN proposition 21 which states that the UN owns all the water on earth (a pretty amazing claim) ... and what they are doing about it and what you should be doing about it ... the main science topic will discuss the planet earth and the myriad of factors that are in balance to allow us this great existence ... it goes back to the original seed of the original comet nucleus that formed earth ... the earth's history and the electrical conditions of the solar system to name just a few ... are we being good guardians of this precious gem we call earth ??? ... join me for a discussion on this topic ... jim mccanney 

On Peer Review ... Posted September 28, 2006

i am always amazed when i see new "theories" presented by people dealing with topics that they obviously have not researched at all ... some have Ph.D.s while others have no degrees of any kind ... the one main thing you need when presenting any scientific concept is scientific and repeatable experimental verification ... this must also stand the test of review by the general scientific community since one person's perceived experiment may have flaws as pointed out by someone else ... recently a person with a Ph.D in chemistry decided to enter the ranks of people presenting theories on how the solar system formed ... not only did this person not research the previously presented theories ... but the person did not offer any means to verify directly any of the claims being newly made in the papers ... yet this got published in a "peer reviewed journal" ... the basis of science (at least since galileo and unfortunately this has been abused lately) is that one must define and complete experiments that prove the concepts presented ... without repeatable scientific verification these presentations are just so much more hot air blowing in the wind ... but then again remember that this is exactly what the disinformation crew strives to achieve ... science is currently in a dismal state ... as long as people can present "theories" and offer no verifiable experiments ... then science has become no better than "rap music" where the singer is "wording up" ... just making rhymes for the sake of rhyme ... when i produced my original work and as i continue to move on the cutting edge with scientists like those at NASA attempting to copy my work and trying to play catch up (but of course without any referencing) i have always provided complete and defined experiments that prove my concepts to even the least of my audience ... this is why my audience continues to grow and learn ... because they are not taking my word based on some badge or credential ... they understand based on their own ability to see exactly what i am saying ... jim mccanney 

On Peer Review ... Posted July 12, 2006 

there has been a ton of recent hype presented to the public in the popular news media regarding COSMOLOGY and the attempts by the scientific community to answer some very fundamental questions regarding the origin of the universe ... i was amazed yet not amazed to read a comment by a world renowned physicist that ... 'all the data of past decades points to the correctness of currently held beliefs by standard science such as the big bang and dark matter etc. etc.'  ... the reality is that NONE of the data is depicting any such thing ... what he should have stated was that the interpretation of the data of the past 10 years by the inner circle of scientists points to correctness of the theories they promote ... a much more correct statement ... it also shows how cloistered these people really are ... they sit in their little university environments and day after day ... month after month ... year after year ... decade after decade ... and now century after century ... repeat the same phrases to themselves while going completely unaware that literally NOTHING they have done is even close to correct and that there is a completely different explanation for everything coming out of these data sets .... and furthermore that the very experiments they are referring to are incorrectly designed to "see" the alternative reality ... such is the nature of peer review  ... yet if one understands the alternative reality it is possible to extrapolate some valuable details from this mess of fish they have created at enormous expense ... that is why lately and continuing i am concentrating on cosmology topics on my radio show .... join me this week again for more details ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted June 20, 2006 

the latest ploy in what i call the Disney science of NASA occurred this past week when the gov paid "scientists" came out with a new term ... "planemos" ... i think that is a take off on a disney cartoon character that pretends he is a planet ... but is not ... but wants to be one ... "planemos" supposedly form around smaller stars and may be very cold and not hospitable to earthlings attempting to live there according to "top" NASA scientists ... not to worry though as the NASA program to inhabit the stars is sufficiently off track so that none of us would ever have to worry about getting to one of these little wanna be planets circling around a remote brown dwarf star in the far flung reaches of the galaxy and not having a place to hang our hats (or space helmets) ... the point is that now the journals are touting this new term as if there has been a great discovery ... kind of like relativity without the relativity ... but just remember that it got through the peer review system so it must be right and of ultimate scientific value ... and oh ... by the way ... you are paying for this nonsense ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted May 04, 2006

when government scientists respond to planted disinformation in the press there is the presumption that we are dealing with two separate entities ... the "pseudo scientists" or crackpots making the errant "predictions" ... and secondly ... what i call the "white hats" ... the NASA tier II scientists who come in to save the day so the public is not "mislead" by the plant article ... what does this have to do with peer review ??? well ... there is no peer review in the news media ... these little staged disinformation dog and pony shows are going on all the time ... seems every May as an example we have some loony toon predicting that an asteroid or comet will hit earth ... the story then gets wide media attention (amazing how they can get this wide of coverage when they want ... and when they want to hide a story ... you do not hear a word) ... the high profile loony toon story then gives the NASA tier II white hat boys the chance at wide scale coverage of their fake science ... understand that all this is completely orchestrated from the disinfo centers at Langley and within higher levels that control Goddard and JPL where the bulk of tier II scientists reside ... notice that these groups have been paired down significantly in past years to a token crew that serves the purpose of the tier I and new world order "masters" that have purchased the souls of the tier I scientists ... the public eats it up every time with the end result being a reinforcement of the old outdated dirty snowball comet model (or other touted "axioms of astronomy") and all of the implications that go with it ... silently in the background the "peer reviewed" journals like SCIENCE and NATURE continue to publish the same tripe to give "respectability" to the tier II "white hats" and this endless parade of dog and pony shows ... then as expected the tier III text book repeaters in NASA outreach programs etc etc etc can repeat this to your kids in school and on internet chat pages ... the end effect ... they do get to their required 95% of the public ... with a sound foundation in "peer review" ... jim mccanney  

On Peer Review ... Posted April 14, 2006

a good example of insider peer review was the incident with the so called "judas gospel" alleged found in a cave in egypt in 1970 and then passed through many very questionable paths and then finally claimed as "authentic" ... the entire story includes some very shady dealings (including being in the hands of unknown "restoration agents") with high monetary stakes and an agenda that dovetailed with the bush administration admission of betraying the world as it lied about uranium in irag and so called weapons of mass destruction ... just as with the deranged scientific community that is totally controlled by the politics of science ... there is a strange inbreeding of  partial and distorted truths - fiction - monetary and political interests ... and the force feeding the public gets in the end ... jim mccanney  

On Peer Review ... Posted March 09, 2006

this past week i was talking to a lady who took a public tour of one of the incredible telescope facilities that we have all paid for and she was impressed with the scopes and expense of telescope time and the limited use of these scopes to high level astronomers ... to which i replied that i am fully aware of that but also explained that there has been an ongoing dilemma associated with high level research in the USA especially (and not only with telescopes but with space related facilities including satellites and space probes sent to research outer space) ... when a group of astronomers became dominant in these facilities and became entrenched (along with their favorite theories) the use of these amazing facilities also became areas of fiefdoms and kingdoms ... an expensive game of king on the hill ... where decades of extremely expensive telescope time have been dedicated to just a few with old theories that do not (and never did) make any sense at all ... so where is the real value ??? this of course reverberates down the ladder into the world of funding, publication and new PhDs who will come on line to be the next users of this marvelous equipment (as my reggae song goes ... "pumpkin heads and puddin heads standing in a row ... all got PhDs and they all say YO .. they read it in a text book so it must be true ... so they repeat it and repeat it just to impress you ... (the full version is available elsewhere on this page)" ... as a result the public really only gets some GEE WHIZZZ tours and a few pretty pictures to impress you (so you do not mind sending those tax dollars next year) ... but the stark reality is one of the greatest wastes ever conceived by man ... the congressional solution was to send more money to these facilities last year ... one might imagine that one would get more ... better and on and on ... NOPE ... what you get is more of the same and a deeper entrenched king on the hill ... this is the core nature of peer review ... jim mccanney  

On Peer Review ... Posted December 01, 2005

December  01, 2005 posting ... many of you have read the note below ... one small caveat ... the squirrels in boxes refers to the tier II and tier III scientists who are allowed to do standardized "junk science" ... what i call the text book repeaters ... they fill your heads and infiltrate your kids schools with embarrassingly bad information and make a pretty good living doing it ... jim mccanney

November 28, 2005 posting ... lately i have been feeding the squirrels and ducks as winter moves into the north country ... it occurred to me as i watched these wild animals how quickly they became dependent on my daily feedings ... if i continued for just one season all the new little squirrels and ducks would soon forget how to forage to find nuts and other wild food ... it would be easy to put boxes or fences around them and they would soon forget what it meant to be free ... it then occurred to me how much like the squirrels and ducks the modern "scientists" have become ... totally dependent (all 99.99999% of them) on the government feeding trough ... like the squirrels they have become fat and lazy ... and totally unable to do real science ... all contained within their little boxes ... the easy route to a science career is following the funding trail and not rocking the boat ... like the squirrels ... the ones i feed are fatter and have much better "funding" ... it really struck me that when i missed a day of feeding ... the squirrels sat on branches outside the window ... angry and wondering why their daily corn and oats were not presented ... rather than looking for a nut or berry ... it reminded me of the scientists who are very organized to make sure congress keeps their funding flowing (as if now we somehow all owe it to them) ... lobbying with impressive organizational titles ... do not forget that the respected journals are a key element ... i recently saw many articles with little scientific factual basis (like global warming papers and space science topics) with much ado about nothing printed in magazines like SCIENCE and NATURE and others ... i am sure that when the authors present this in their next grant proposal they will be highly regarded by their peers ... as with much of education today ... it all looks good on paper ... but like the squirrels and ducks who have been "domesticated" ... they are unable to return to a natural habitat to search for unbiased science ... few if any have any idea of how science worked in the days before government dominated funding .... many times government scientists are surprised that i do not take or seek government funding ... they cannot imagine life without it ... in brief ... after you take away all the buildings and support staff and overhead not to mention travel and what i call scientific vacations (these add up to about 95% of all science funding) ... you will find that VERY LITTLE of the funding actually goes to doing science ... then when you consider that what is left goes to supporting out of date theories and biases that dominate the scientific world ... you really have very little useful money spent on science at all ... so you tell me ... which squirrel is better off ?? ... the one that is fat and happy with plenty of food in his little box ... or the squirrel who is fit and independent and can forage for his own food and roams freely amongst the trees of the forest  ... jim mccanney  

On Peer Review ... Posted November 10, 2005

just a quick note today as i read the latest NASA review of one of its 10 year programs by the daunting list of agencies and scientists that will be allowed to comment on its "progress and future" ... it all seems impressive but there is one major flaw in this "peer review process" ... these guys and ladies are completely unaware that there is an entire tier of science occurring above them and there is an entire world of science that pre-existed all of them and in most cases was around before most of them were out of grade school ... my science work has dealt  with these issues and continues to be cutting edge far in front of their entire program ... there is an expression "thinking outside of the box" ... well these people are the ones "thinking inside the box" and it turns out to be a very small but very expensive box ... government has an obligation to support science and the arts ... the original constitution of the united states even has a clause on it ... but i dare say that this was not what the founding fathers intended ... nor should it be how science operates ... jim mccanney  

On Peer Review ... Posted November 03, 2005

there is a subtle thing that happens in peer review once it becomes overly obvious that a previously accepted "fact" is now totally incorrect ... take the origin of oil on earth for example ... now you have the strangest of all situations ... the guys that have been doing the peer review to maintain the incorrect concept are still the ones reviewing and promoting any new concepts ... they have to keep some semblance of respectability so 1) they have to pretend that somehow they knew about the "new" replacement concepts all along and 2) they have to ignore the complaints of those that were barred from publishing alternative ideas during their prior reign of ignorance and 3) they have to preserve some basic and probably incorrect premises such as the uniformitarian concept that somehow the earth did all this by itself and it happened very long ago (out of sight and out of mind) ... so peer review does the slip slide as it serves to protect those in the peer review system ... even though they had been grossly incorrect during their tenure ... the end result is that the new paradigm is rarely any more logical or well founded as the prior ... but that makes little difference when you still have that weekly government pay check coming in and the same journals publish your stuff ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted October 17, 2005

In addition to the serious problem being caused by peer review and the monopoly of the space program by NASA and insider scientists ... the problem is compounded by the fact that decades worth of satellites doing research in outer space are being totally incorrectly designed by people who have no clue how outer space even works ... take the ongoing planet mercury mission that included NO equipment to test the theory of general relativity which has been claimed to explain the precession of the orbit of the sun's closest planetary neighbor ... and more fundamental than that ... it provides no provisions to test the alternative concepts that planet mercury is affected by the electrical effects such as tail drag due to the high levels of heavy metals found in the ecliptic (plane of the planets) in this region of the solar system ... NASA has failed miserably in the area of allowing outside scientists to contribute scientific experiments and instrumentation design for these once in a life time exploratory missions ... so is it any wonder that they continue to "verify" the theories that they hold dear and that the text book repeater tier III college teachers of astronomy continue to air to students paying exorbitant fees for their false information ... this is the other half of the failed system of peer review ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted October 05, 2005

Not many people know that Albert Einstein had only 6 papers published in peer reviewed journals ... 5 of these were in the same year in germany in 1905 ... after moving to the United States in 1933 ... he had one paper published in the Physical Review journal and after that refused to have anything to do with peer review ... he was vocally outspoken against this system until his death in 1955 ... when i talked to Hans Beta when i was at Cornell University in my years there of 1979 to 1981 ... he often spoke of Einstein and this little known fact ... it was Beta who advised me to seek publication in the european journals where my papers on Continuing Galactic Evolution and Saturn's Sweeper Moons Predicted were published ... these journal editors immediately began receiving hate mail (sometimes called poison pen or blackball letters) from US scientists who were already busy at stomping out my career ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted September 15, 2005

Another main flaw of peer review is that, although carl sagan claimed that science is "self correcting" ... in reality it is very much not self correcting ... take the warm water theory of hurricane formation as just one example .... any third grader could calculate that the energy of warm water in the ocean is no where near enough to fuel a hurricane ... and we have seen good examples of larger hurricanes following in the heals of lesser hurricanes ... sometimes just hours later... we have seen hurricanes in cold northern waters (the perfect storm is just one great example) and we have pictures of hurricanes at the north pole of Mars where there is no water at all ... so where is the peer review and self correction in science ??? ... as with the peer review system itself ... the researchers and their "peers" do not ask or demand questions like this of their peers ... and as with the Deep Impact scientists who hide behind phony news release photo ops and have their papers printed carte blanche in journals like SCIENCE and NATURE ... this is hardly "peer review" ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted September 08, 2005

OK ... so this week the peer reviewed journal SCIENCE is publishing the "initial results" of the Deep Impact probe data ... only problem is that it shows clay and calcium carbonate (sea shells) and crystallized ocean sand (and of course that dusty black water that nasa keeps referring to) ... all of these are unique to liquid water environments ... how strange is this as the data also shows no trace of water or snow or ice ... so one has to ask ... who is doing the peer review ... when i was more conversant with  the staff at goddard where the now senior staff scientist Dr. Carey Lisse worked when i first met him (when the x-rays to the sunward side of comets were first discovered that i had predicted in my 1979 published papers) ... i learned that Dr. Carey liked to be called Casey since as a youth people made a play on his name and slid it together calling him "careless" ... seems that casey is living up to his childhood fears ... or soon we may be calling him reckless (how about jobless !!) ... isn't it amazing how forgiving the peer review process is for the insiders and how demanding it is of those trying to pierce the holy sanctuary of the peer reviewed journals from the outside ?? ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted August 25, 2005

what happens when the text book industry pays harvard university ... that bastion of learning and truth (that also created and  promoted the dirty snow ball comet model) ... to declare that evolution is a scientific fact ... you get what you paid for ... listen to my radio archive of today's show for more details ... assume a premise ... pour $$$$ into a study with "experts" and a name like harvard ... and wala get the needed "peer reviewed facts" you need to sell LOTS OF TEXT BOOKS ... jim mccanney  

On Peer Review ... Posted July 28, 2005

i was just thinking that the term "peer review" is truly just what it states ... taken literally it means "reviewed by your peers" it implies fairness but inherently it says insider trading in the sciences ... yup ... the peers are there by design and a modern form of natural selection ... it truly means the good ole' boy network or the buddy system ... the term "the peter principle" truly applies here big time with a healthy dash of cronyism ... maybe now that the public is educated in the ways of the cosmos we should open the journals to "public review" ... after all just think of all the truly knowledgeable PhD scientists that now understand that the garbage that NASA has been feeding the public for decades is just that ... garbage ... so when the "peer" group reviews the insiders work it truly is that ... as much as the fox is the peer of the chickens in the hen house as he eyes the chickens for supper ... in the  truest sense the fox guarding the hen house is a peer reviewer ... on an equal level as the quarry ... imagine the journals NATURE, SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and the plethora of peer reviewed space science journals having to subject their past articles to  real (public) peer review with hind sight and in the public eye ... with the public now perceptive that these journals have promoted the biggest wild goose chase in the history of man and oversaw the biggest con job that true science has ever known ... the American space program ... jim mccanney


On Peer Review ... Posted July 28, 2005

This past week hundreds of grant hungry climate scientists approached Congress for continued funding claiming that there is "universal agreement amongst their peers regarding humans causing global warming" ... they have "confirmed it" they claim.  actually this confirmation came by a popular vote by people who just happen to make their living (and quite a nice one at that) out of gov funding of their "research".  Over the past years Congress has poured (at the urging of alarmist criminologists) over $5 Billion (yes with a B) into their coffers.  This is BIG BUSINESS folks ... make no mistake about it.  Many of these guys (and gals) have spent their entire careers flying around the world to conferences and being big shots.  Only problem is that the pollution continues unabated and as i state in my weather book this has become a giant political football where in fact there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect ... and worst of all there are "ongoing studies" that will last more decades.  Yes the planet is warming but has NOTHING to do with temperature increase.  For the entire explanation see my weather book.  We are talking about solar radical change and solar system change and HEAT CONTENT.  But the point here is that once again the ole' peer review gig is providing a lavish life style for those insiders who can draw a pretty graph to convince you of almost anything as long as there is gov funding in the trough.  PEER REVIEW just makes good business sense ... as long as the money goes into their pockets ... after all ... in reality ... where would any of these clowns get a real job if their funding dried up???    The same holds true for the NASA crowd ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted June 30, 2005

"The Inside Track" or the equivalent to insider trading NASA style ... this is also intimately coupled to the "peer review" system ... if you are a research scientist at a NASA research institute you have the inside track on special projects funding and lots of times the ideas for such projects come from outside ... it happens all the time ... take for example the recent quickie grant obtained by two researchers at the NASA Kennedy Space Center to research the use of electric fields to deflect hazardous radiation from astronauts in outer space (i have talked about this many  times on my radio shows and in my books and talk about this specific NASA grant on my june 30 radio show) ... these types of "borrowed idea proposals" all have certain key elements to make them succeed ... first and foremost is the borrowed idea (many listeners emailed this same story in saying the same thing "NASA scientists must be listening to the James McCanney Science Hour radio shows and reading the books" ) ... in this case the possible use of electrical fields in outer space as related to the radiation issue and astronaut safely ... a second essential element to stealing an idea to get funding inside of NASA is to dust off the old literature and find some remote obtrusive or even unrelated reference to some ancient paper that remotely uses some word that can give a "link to the past" (lots of times lackey graduate students do this work) ... this ancient paper is then quoted as if NASA somehow knew about this all along ... and the third essential element is called "selective referencing" whereby you casually eliminate the real source of the idea (under federal law this is illegal not to mention violates the ethical standards for grant funding and publication of ideas set by both the American Institute of Physics AIP and the American Physical Society APS) ... but no need to worry because NASA has long been covering its behind and protecting the ranks in this regard ... they are old hands at borrowing ideas and making them their own ... in fact one could make a good case that this is a life style at NASA rather than an occasional mishap ... now all you need is a ready source of funding such as is the case with the NASA "Living With A Star" program ... which is a back door name for "how the hell do we get through the Van Allen Belts to get to the Moon" (if it was no big deal in 1969 then why is it such a big deal now ???) ... that is hardly the point that gets aired but the point of this article is that if you are a NASA scientist sitting in a NASA supported lab you have the inside track on $$$ and then the follow up $$ etc ... and you know what ? if some outsider dares to think he or she could get even a small piece of that pie they end up with the NASA insider scientists to review their grant funding and/or publication efforts ... guess what folks ... it is an insider trading scam that is more illegal than anything you will find in the stock market or elsewhere but it happens all the time in science thanks to the good boy network in NASA ... or should i say peer review system ???  ... jim mccanney 

On Peer Review ... Posted June 07, 2005

 On July 4 i will be guest on Coast to Coast AM to talk about the Deep Impact Probe and comet impact results ... this has been a PERFECT EXAMPLE of NASA evasiveness on the topic of the true nature of comets ... NASA scientists have been totally elusive and every NASA based news releases cannot state enough times their charade that comets are supposedly dirty snowballs and they are expecting to study the remnants of lah lah lah ... you know the routine ... this is a perfect example of a group that has dominated science with a totally incorrect theory and will not let the correct theory in place or even get a word to the public that there even is an alternative theory ... they refuse to mention my work and these scientists are FULLY AWARE OF IT ... some know me personally and have for decades ... believe me they were ALL listening to the March 30, 2005  Coast to Coast AM Velikovsky debate and even called George Noory during the show to invite him to personally visit JPL ... in spite of this the popular vote was 53% to 47% in favor of my presentation of the issues on that debate show ... what does this say about the public's understanding of comets ??? and what does this say about PEER REVIEW in this area of science ... remember that i am the ONLY PERSON who clearly stated all along that comets are not dirty snow balls and stuck with it through thick and thin (of course now there are lots of wanna bee imposters running around trying to cut in on my success) ... but of PEER REVIEW it clearly is used to harbor funding and publications and notoriety in the press and to prevent other work from being seen or heard ... need i say more ??? jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted May 02, 2005

a possible real solution for a peer review alternative could take on a new role using the internet as a meeting ground for scientists to post views ... these could be preliminary ideas that could then be bantered around ... ideas could be placed with people's names etc in search for instant feedback ... the entire issue however continues to be clouded by the legitimate claim of real scientists that there are an ever growing number of imposters on the internet ... the real loser here is the public who then has limited information ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted April 19, 2005

When non-scientist wanna bees muck up the goods for everyone else ... "legitimate" science has a legitimate beef ... carl sagan popularized the term "pseudo-science" and he had a very good reason for doing so ... the same people he branded in 1974 are still running around and jumping up and down for attention ... spinning their garbage and have recently added new "crew members" who all now pretend they have been "researching for decades" ... the oldest con in the book ... the only problem is their stories do not hold up under even the faintest scrutiny ... but the point is when you see the blend of everyone else's work and it comes out all sideways and distorted you realize that sagan in fact had a legitimate point ... this is one of the areas of agreement between Dr David Morrison and myself in our "Debate"  ... these internet wanna bee imposter scientists muck up the works for legitimate independent scientists as noted in my "thought of the day" piece for today ... they even get a few gov scientists to join in as supporting cast members in an effort to claim legitimacy ... but these people are sorely out of place ... clearly more is going on here than what meets the eye ... jim mccanney 


On Peer Review ... Posted March 24, 2005

i keep harping about the internet imposters who are presenting themselves as "people with 30 years of research" and research scientists in the "Electric Universe" etc etc etc ... these are people who have no degrees or scientific backgrounds and have stolen 99% of  everything they are posting on their internet pages (and they do not have "30 years of research" ... this is a play on words at best !!!!)  ... they are hiding from any contact by the throngs of the curious public who ask repeatedly "why no reference to mccanney's work" and repeatedly get no answer .. the big question is ... why do the two sites that continually post and promote by printing this obviously plagiarized material continue to do so after being notified and why do they not respond to the literally thousands of people who have pointed this out ??? ... it may be because these "host sites" are government sponsored and are being told what to do ... most people do not know what happened about a month ago when for the third time these host sites were challenged to post the truth about the people that are posting as "researchers on the Electric Universe" ... rather than post the truth ... these sites (which claim to be open forums) chose to take down the postings that exposed the truth on this issue ... what are these sites hiding and what else do they  have to hide ??? for web pages that claim to have "the truth" is it not interesting that some truths are not allowed ... it is in fact this group of imposters promoted at these sites who are using Velikovsky's name as a draw that are doing the most damage to Velikovsky's name ... possibly that is the intent after all, as that is the very nature of disinformation (seemingly promoting a concept and then doing a bait and switch to do just the opposite ... and just a final note ... is it not interesting that NASA is providing daily pictures from its internal files to post on this site every day and why are the standard nay sayers ... the web trolls gov disinfo crew that is ... not saying peep about this site ???? ... someone is putting a good deal of backing into that site which is complete with full time staff ... with no visible means of support)  ... jim mccanney  


On Peer Review ... Posted March 17, 2005

here is the ENTIRE issue with peer review as viewed from both sides of the issue ... peer review originated due to problem of garbage creeping into the scientific journals ... as with many well intentioned programs it started with good intentions but inherent flaws allowed it to be used to gain control of certain areas of study and as with any king on the hill ... the people on top kept out any new and out of the ordinary ideas since it was "not based on previous work" and thus standard paradigms crept in to stay for decades ... in the USA where there is ever growing monetary input the competition is not just for publishing fame but also for grant and funding ... now with the stakes much higher than when peer review was first originated ... you see the rules of the game have changed because the stakes are higher ... this leads to who gets to use equipment of the highest quality and who gets to design this and then be the principle investigators etc etc etc ..  the  flip side especially today with the internet is that there is an ever expanding number of self proclaimed experts who have NO background in the sciences at all and who are spewing garbage ... they read what others have done and call that "research" and then spew their "research" on web pages that have no peer review at all ... the unsuspecting and generally non-scientific public reads this much to their confusion and although it looks good they do not get the subtleties of what is going on here ... so you have an ever growing bunch on internet quacks out there presenting garbage ... this gives the impression that ALL internet sites are garbage which is very much not the case ... then you have the clowns that are actually claiming to have PhDs in Plasma Physics and after investigations we find they have NO degrees AT ALL OF ANY KIND ... these are the real lunatics with their surrounding bands of like minded morons who are trying to sell you a book or video ... scam artists ... so the scientific community soon blocks it ALL out and becomes even more cloistered than it was before ... those with legitimate work is further drown out by intentionally designed government funded disinformation sites to present more garbage (geee they wouldn't do that now would they???) ... and the public who has never had a true free press with true investigative journalism has to sift through this over bearing amount of garbage to try to get some truth ... good luck !!! ... and last but not least you have the so called scientific news media that simply prints what they are told from certain segments of controlled news releases from government supported science which has been decades in the process of peer review and limited progress since change may mean loss of funding !!! so year after year you hear the same from the standard scientific community ... year after year after decade and on and on ... jim mccanney


On Peer Review ... Posted February 11, 2005

is it not amazing that the astronomers today that are starting to come out of their closets to criticize me are making the classic mistakes they made against other pioneers ... they do not read my material but spew inaccurate lies being propagated by a few internet astronomers who also have failed to read my material ... and thus they think they are safe within their sheltered ivory towers and government sanctioned walls ... this time it is different as the public is now getting their scientific education directly from my own words and writings ... typically the old boys and the new young PhD bucks (and gals) have had exclusive reign over the media and the information flow to the public ... but now the public has been well educated and can see through the thin cloak of scientific righteousness that shields these imposters ... PhDs all lined up in a row saying the same thing does not make science .. it makes a mutual admiration society and the public can see through this facade ... jim mccanney


On Peer Review ... Posted Jamuary 22, 2005

OK so just when you thought that honesty in the sciences could not reach any lower depths ... the creeping crud is pushing forward at new record pace using the American Geophysical Union as a mechanism (this has been going on for a long time) ... Note that the behind the scene meetings that issue who will host meetings and who will be allowed to present at meetings is a real closed club house ... there are no records of the proceedings of the meetings and the "conveners" (those that decide who gets air time at the meetings) hold the reigns on who gets to show up and be heard and seen ... this is another method to bring information to the forefront by some and keeping others at bay 1) with out any real peer review (which is a joke anyway) and 2) allows people to pilfer the ideas that come in the suggestion boxes for these meetings and NO ONE IS ANY THE WISER ... the AGU runs under the guise of honesty but i have already shown where the American Institute of Physics study showed widespread abuses in the sciences (see the November 19, 2004 posting below) regarding plagiarism and similar abuses ... So the American Geophysical Union meetings are arising as a major source of pilfering of information in the sciences ... this leads to publications in the "respectable jounrals" by those lucky enough to be in the club house groups of the AGU ... jim mccanney 


On Peer Review ... Posted December 02, 2004

It is apparent from reading the "political posturing" in scientific journals as well as popular and trade magazines that a serious effort is on behind the scenes for "protectionism" of the old guard ... these are the old guards that protect NASA, the US aerospace industry (that until now have had clear monopolies and near infinite pork budgets), protectionism of outdated astronomical theories as well as those in geology and evolutionary biology.  What's up with this renewed surge of political correctness in the sciences ??? it is two-fold ... the first is to send a clear message to young and old alike in these fields that any wandering from these "standards" could mean your career ... and second, to have this filter down to the public news and other information outlets to prompt new and invigorated programs of pushing the old glory days of these arenas on the public again.  I see it constantly in news papers, magazine articles, TV specials and filtering through on the evening news.  I see it in organizations such as the astronomy club networks and the professional magazines that go out to professionals in these fields.  There is a lot at stake here and they are certainly responding in part to the success i have been having at pointing out the failures of all of these programs directly to the public.  But remember i probably only reach 5% of the general public and the efforts to block the "spread" of my information is at every corner.  Keeping the 95% of the public bamboozled is their goal.  This is being lead by a bunch of old men in suites that are as old as their last original thought.  I hate to be always harping on all of this as i would rather spend my valuable time on moving forward with correct science ... but we have the entire US scientific community cornered in this head lock by the old guard and watch as the rest of the world is passing us by at the speed of light in these endeavors ... if you have not heard my December 02 radio show, go to the archives for more on this and i think that you will start to get the drift (scroll down to the 12/02/04 archive on the main home page and click on the links) ... jim mccanney   


On Peer Review ... Posted November 19, 2004 

if you have been reading this sub page and scoffing at my "bad attitude" then just take a look at the November issue of Physics Today and look at the study just completed ... the survey was issued to new PhD and "junior" members of the phycics community in the USA ... 39% said they had witnessed the following 

data falsification

not including appropriate authors


less than truthful reports

not citing prior work

delaying referee reports 

including inappropriate authors


ok so now we know that this group of "respectable journals" are being used for the benefit of a few ... so what can someone do about it ... how do you sue the government scientists when they all hang together and are a infiltrated to this level with confirmed liars ???

i guess maybe someone else is noticing what i am talking about on this subpage !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jim mccanney


On Peer Review ... Posted October 28, 2004 

after reading everything below you would think that i  would want to abolish peer review forever ... actually not although i think the following ... that scientists should have an open forum that partially replaces peer review and when someone puts his idea into the ring it goes with his reputation and he or she better have their ducks in a row because the other scientists could then have at it ... also someone's idea would be registered as his idea and there would not be this edging in on someone's work that is going on today ... more suggestions to come ... jim mccanney


On Peer Review ... Posted October 15, 2004 

There is an ongoing CON in the peer reviewed literature (and on some of the "quack" web pages hosted by internet pretend scientists) ... it is called "selective referencing" ... here is how it works ... someone decides to plagiarize my work and needs to pretend that they are referencing "older" work as their source ... They do so in hopes of conning the audience into believing that they are originators of the concepts that i developed and that i have been promoting at great personal expense of time and other real investments for decades ... so the scammers then "bypass" referencing my work in hopes of looking as if they are now originators of concepts similar to or in many cases exactly like my well established work that has all the paper trails and heavily referenced to older literature ... one hallmark of the plagiarists is that there are great gaps between the original references and the plagiarizing scammer's poorly conceived reproductions ... clearly if they referenced my work as would be proper by any scholarly standards, it would become patently clear to the casual reader that the scammers have NO original work and are just copying the work and labors of someone else ... have you seen anything like this lately ???? there is something in store for these people ... jim mccanney


On Peer Review ... Posted October 01, 2004 

When peer review is noted as a hallmark of modern "respectable science" let me refer to a recent example of how peer review protects scientists "on the inside" and prevents scientists "on the outside" from having even the smallest voice.  This occurred when recently NASA and the international space science community announced that the Pioneer space craft as well as the Voyager I and Voyager II space craft have been retarded in their progress out of the solar system since they were launched back in the 70's.  There was an emergency meeting of space scientists in Paris 2 weeks ago by the international community.  My papers regarding the passage of Jupiter and Saturn by the Pioneer and Voyagers I and II spacecraft entitled "Saturn Sweeper Moons Predicted" published in 1980 in one of the "respected astrophysics journals" gave the equations and all theoretical results necessary to calculate the required effect due to the induced electric dipole force on the metal space craft moving in a non-uniform electric field.  I of course called the people in charge of the NASA sites dealing with this and related issues and guess what ???? they are choosing to ignore this pioneering work and proceed with their "own version" of the causes ... of course there is a long and rich history to the ongoing research and many incidents where General Relativity had been attempted to be invoked only to be shown again and again to be a failure ... Be that as it may, the point here is that the hallowed peer review system again is protecting NASA scientists from being scrutinized and from allowing competing scientists into the arena ... it sustains a monopoly of government supported scientists and retains the status quo as the "experts" ... we see this in literally every vein of research today ... when government funding and science go hand in hand with the peer review system ... the monopoly of inside scientists is maintained and the outside scientists are kept from the arena ... at this point should we really be calling this "science" ... as with the recent PBS miniseries on "ORIGINS" the status quo gets the press and the outsiders are kept out which only reinforces the king on the hill strategy of government supported scientists ... in this respect i am going to start calling them a name they tend to use on outsiders ... they are "pseudo-scientists" since they rest not on their achievements but on the system that keeps them there with no competition and no review of their work ... this is the true nature of "peer review" ... jim mccanney

On Peer Review ... Posted September 13, 2004 

Another hidden major failure of the peer review system of publication is that it has prevented true science that is outside that standard box from being presented in the journals and this in turn has allowed a flourishing of phony "science" sites on  the internet and through email groups ... the public clearly has no faith in NASA or other science agencies such as NOAA so they turn to the web for information ... my page and radio show and guest appearances on the many radio and TV shows and at conferences etc has instilled a feeling of confidence and trust in my statements and my work because i clearly and concisely present material that the public understands ... HOWEVER ... there has been a plethora of phonies (people claiming to have degrees who have none and who claim to be "plasma physicists" or have had visions etc ) who do nothing but borrow from everyone else and put this on their web pages and then add a ton of "talking science trash" to water down the real researchers that attempt to inform the public on the web ... add to this the intentional mix of crazy web sites that in fact are government supported and you get a mess ... people rely on this home page to keep them informed and even the government scientists are regular visitors to this page ... but the public once again is the victim of the failed peer review system of publication  ... jim mccanney


On Peer Review ... Posted August 30, 2004 

The latest example of total impropriety in the peer review system is where a large group of government funding hungry scientists have gained a pure monopoly ... this is in the area of "global warming" ... something that strikes fear and anger into the hearts of the american public due to the oil and pollution industries ... the fact is that the concept of "global warming" and our polluting this earth are far more complex than is being announced ... but a panel has recently claimed that since 98% of "experts in this field" agree and since they have "computer models" (those magic words) ... that they have "proven"  the effects of the greenhouse effect ... note that very few scientitsts now refer to the term "greenhouse effect" since the concept is now known to be theoretically impossible (it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics among many other issues) ... this is a complex issue but the point here is that once again science has been monopolized by a group in need of more government funding ... also the scientific outcome depends on popular vote of those who get the funding ... this is one of the major downfalls of the modern peer review system ... the reason 98% of all "experts" agree is because, as in many other fields, a dominant group has seized power via the peer review system ... a system that has totally failed, thereby forcing out any alternative positions  ... jim mccanney


On Peer Review ... Posted May 28, 2004

This past week a group of 30 scientists posted a public statement in New Scientist slamming the system that has forced control of funding and publication and allocation of equipment for 30 years or more in the effort to understand the secrets of the universe.  The "Big Bang" work has been misguided since its inception by Hubble in the early 1900's.  In my own work i am going to emphasize the Induced Electric Dipole Red Shift that was introduced in 1979 with my other comet work and originally included in my first book (copyright 1980) entitled "Origin of the Planets - Comet Capture Processes in the Formation of Solar Systems".  This is just another indicator that everything I have been saying is true about the government MONOPOLY of science and the damage it has created for decades under the hood of "correct science and respectability" ... jim mccanney


On Peer Review ... Posted May 23, 2004 

Remember that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Tesla, Einstein and a huge host of other pioneers that we hail today as the greatest minds in the development of science ... ALLLLL were opposed by the seats of knowledge of their day ... in general the lives of most great scientists were destroyed by jealousy, hate and ignorance of the top ranking scientists of their day ... by today's standards of peer review and in today's world of the government supported scientist monopoly, the greatest achievers' work would be rejected from publication in the "respectable journals" and eventually their material would be piecemeal stolen by the scientific mafia we call NASA, the NSF and other alphabet soup agencies (NASA ... your friendly kid loving space agency ... with nothing in space ... last week was caught with a mere $565 BILLION missing from their coffers ... that's one quarter of the national debt folks and they only have a 15 Billion dollar a year budget ... how does that work???) 

riddle of the day ... this year many federal science budgets nearly doubled and the black money is literally in orbit ... here is the riddle ... what do you get from increased government spending in the sciences? ... more monopolized science ... tighter government ownership of science, technology and the scientists (99.9999% who work directly for the fed) ... greater pressure forcing out any remaining independent scientists while the gov feeding scientists turn their heads as they watch theft of private ideas by the monopoly ... an enormous black ops space program with NASA as the front man ... and last but not least, some very wealthy aerospace executives and their cronies ... now the punch line ... what does the PUBLIC get ??? NOTHING is the right answer (just the bill and some phony NASA outreach programs of paid liars infiltrating your kid's schools) ... jim mccanney 


On Peer Review ... Posted May 21, 2004

Peer review is the process by which anonymous "referees" judge papers to be published (or rejected) from the so called "respectable journals" .... it maintains the club house boys and keeps the unwanted riff raff out of their precious little ivory tower ... 

first comment (i am going on the attack on this sacred cow that protects the professors and scientists whose last original thought occurred prior to the last new suite they bought) 

... peer review is like a near sighted old man driving 40 miles per hour in the left lane on a crowded speeding freeway ... he has no problem with traffic ... he always has many car lengths free in front of him ... he just cannot figure out why all those people are honking and trying to get around him ... in the process he is causing accidents and collisions and is oblivious to the fact that every day he is retarding the normal flow of everyone except himself ... if only everyone would drive like him there would be no traffic problems ... after all he is obeying the traffic laws ... 

the flip side of this is for example the nasa scientists who have sole ownership and dominion over space craft data and who publish WITHOUT referee scrutiny in top journals such as SCIENCE and NATURE 

there is a better way to deal with these issues ... a completely open forum is not a solution since you would end up with the equivalent of an internet chat page with every nut case on the planet clogging the system ... stay tuned for upcoming commentary 

 jim mccanney