Eagleflight wrote:
IOWA61
Again. I have no interest in the interpersonal grudges and unsupported beliefs; the only thing that is relevant to me is the science.
Would you care to tell us what is your area of expertise in evaluating peer reviewed papers about science? Again you bloviate about you're knowledge of peer reviewed papers without the benefit of your own expertise or discipline? Give a rest Pal, you are not credible.
I can't claim any expertise in the evaluation of peer-reviewed papers. But that's not how it works. Peer Review is conducted--usually anonymously--by colleagues of the author, in the same field of equal stature. Hence the term "Peer."
I am an advocate for the Scientific Method. As a writer and editor, I can claim to be very familiar with the process and requirements for publication of scientific research papers. I am also very familiar with the process for publication of proper critiques. However, there's nothing special about that; anyone can research those processes and protocols. They're hardly obscure.
I have no intention of "giving it a rest." Nor do I find your pronouncement of my lack of credibility troublesome. I will say this: There's no way I could have expected the hostility and weird, singular, agenda I've experienced on this purported "forum." So far, it's nothing but an echo chamber where challenges to preexisting ideas are not accepted, nor is the responsibility for claims that demand it.