Journal special issue: "The Search For Life in the Universe"

[RGClark]

Nice collection of articles here. Pretty much on any topic of interest to those interested in Astrobiology:

The Search For Life in the Universe:
Mars, Moon, Europa, Titan, Io,
Encedalus, ExoPlanets, Nebular Clouds...
Journal of Cosmology, February - March 2010
http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents5.html


Bob Clark

[formulaterp]

Looks like a panspermia propaganda site to me. Lots of essays masquerading as journal articles.

[baric]

I haven't had a chance to read any yet, but will take a look. However, I was surprised to see an paper on what should have been the shortest article/essay possible: "Io - Is Life Possible between Fire and Ice?"

I mean, really. To how many words can you spread "No" out?

[baric]

Not a lot of meat in those articles at all and lots of incestuous citations. Also, every one of the articles seems to be written from the premise that panspermia is an established fact.

[eburacum45]

Yes, it is a panspermia propaganda site. I'd dismiss most of the stuff on there. But not all the articles are written by panspermia proponents; I see one by Ben Goertzel there, about intelligent life on waterworlds. Quite why the panspermia enthusiasts have included his paper I don't quite understand.

[tnjrp]

At a glance, the articles numbered from 11 upwards seem to be less presuppositive of panspermia.

[A.DIM]

Nice collection of articles here. Pretty much on any topic of interest to those interested in Astrobiology:

The Search For Life in the Universe:
Mars, Moon, Europa, Titan, Io,
Encedalus, ExoPlanets, Nebular Clouds...
Journal of Cosmology, February - March 2010
http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents5.html


Bob Clark

Hi Bob, thanks!
I rather like what JoC offers: peer reviewed open access papers from scientists around the world. Yeah, some are speculative and others merely opinion or commentary but all seem grounded in good science.
I'm curious though, what makes this particular issue "special" in your mind?

[R.A.F.]

Yes, it is a panspermia propaganda site.

Then who are the "peers" who (as it says on that page) "peer reviewed" the articles? Other panspermia proponents??

[A.DIM]

Then who are the "peers" who (as it says on that page) "peer reviewed" the articles? Other panspermia proponents??

From the "About" page:

Authors should submit the names, affiliations, and email addresses of 5 scientists qualified to review their paper. Do not submit the names of friends or colleagues. The Editor may use these to guide the selection of referees.

All papers are reviewed anonymously by at least two referees who are experts in the field in question. Editors may serve as referees. If the article is accepted pending revision authors will be asked to respond to criticisms and suggestions by the referees prior to publication.

If reviewers suggest publication pending revision, authors will be invited to revise and resubmit the manuscript and to address and respond to criticisms and suggestions by the referees. Reviewers will be consulted about resubmitted manuscripts.

If the paper is rejected by one referee but accepted by a second referee, the author will be given the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript.

Referees opposing publication will be required to provide the editor with detailed, fact-based evidence, demonstrating that the rejected manuscript suffers from specific, and significant short-comings.

Papers rejected by both referees cannot be revised and resubmitted.

[R.A.F.]

Referees opposing publication will be required to provide the editor with detailed, fact-based evidence, demonstrating that the rejected manuscript suffers from specific, and significant short-comings.

In other words, prove it wrong.

Obviously these folks never heard of the burden of proof.

[A.DIM]

In other words, prove it wrong.

Obviously these folks never heard of the burden of proof.

You don't think the editors should require referees to present evidentiary arguments as to why a paper should not be published?

[R.A.F.]

The burden of proof falls to those who propose extraordinary ideas.

[A.DIM]

The burden of proof falls to those who propose extraordinary ideas.

OK, so an author submits a paper proposing something "extraordinary" and the referee who opposes publication shouldn't be required to provide evidentiary arguments as to why the paper shouldn't be published?

I think you've misunderstood something.

Referees opposing publication will be required to provide the editor with detailed, fact-based evidence, demonstrating that the rejected manuscript suffers from specific, and significant short-comings... or proposes something extraordinary.

You don't agree with this?

[R.A.F.]

I think you've misunderstood something.

Not at all...I've stated my position quite clearly. You might not agree with that, but that's not my problem.


Nuff said

[A.DIM]

Not at all...I've stated my position quite clearly. You might not agree with that, but that's not my problem.


Nuff said

Well, I asked a couple questions for clarification of your position and you did not answer.

It's not a matter of whether I agree with you or no, RAF; how could I one way or another when I don't understand the point you tried to make about burden of proof?

[baric]

My only criticism is that there seems to be very little depth to the papers. The issue to me is not whether the referees are not catching errors, but that there seems to be no minimum academic standard applied.

What I saw a lot of was repeated recitation of known history (aka filler) followed by heavily-cited speculation posing as some sort of scientific conclusion. There was rarely any actual reasoning or data to provide any sort of logical stepping stones to their conclusions; it was as if you had to trust the validity of their overwhelming number of citations.

[JonClarke]

In other words, prove it wrong.

Obviously these folks never heard of the burden of proof.

Having reviewed my share of science papers I can assure you these requirements are normal. Editors expect their reviewers to give reasons for their comments, not dismiss papers out of hand. This protects the journal against accusations of biased review and provides the authors guidance to improve their submission.

[A.DIM]

My only criticism is that there seems to be very little depth to the papers. The issue to me is not whether the referees are not catching errors, but that there seems to be no minimum academic standard applied.

Do we blame that on the Editors and Board, the peers / referees, or both?
I'm dismayed someone like Schild might have no minimum academic standard.

[Moose]

Do we blame that on the Editors and Board, the peers / referees, or both?

And the authors.

I'm dismayed someone like Schild might have no minimum academic standard.

It happens. Just to remind folks playing at home, when I did some digging, um, sometime last autumn, and again a few months later, I discovered some... colorful things.

When I first ran into them, they ran a virtual server called (IIRC) "Cosmology" that hosted a very bare "journal". The only published article I could find had the words "peer reviewed" on the top, and no other information (and apparently no other pages, either; the domain pointed straight to the article.) A glance at the domain registration contact information showed that "Cosmology" belonged to the author of the article itself.

When Journal of Cosmology first came up, their domain contact information had the same contact name, address, post office box, and phone number as Cosmology. A few months later, they were hosted by an anonymizing hosting company. Their only contact point was a P.O. Box (for fee submission) and an anonymizing email proxy run by the same outfit who hosts their server and domain. This means they have no verifiable contact information. All contact is by call-backs or write-backs.

IIRC, we actually have the hosting company's IP range in IP block list for hitting us with message board spam.

I'm going to put my mod hat on for a sec and float something past you guys. To avoid hijacking the thread with too much meta, I'd like feedback on this question by PM. Given what seem to be wide concerns about the practices of this journal, would there be any serious objections if we were to consider disallowing Journal of Cosmology as suspect for the purposes of LiS (the same as we do for Pravda?)

[baric]

Do we blame that on the Editors and Board, the peers / referees, or both?

I wasn't assigning blame to anyone -- I was just making a personal observation about the 6-8 papers I read.

To be fair, the idea of "panspermia propaganda" seems like an oxymoron to me. I guess that anyone is free to take dogmatic positions within the scientific community, but it's always a losing proposition.

I'm dismayed someone like Schild might have no minimum academic standard.

I have no idea who that person is, so I am unable to share in your dismay.

[Jetlack]

IMO banning links to this journal would be going a little too far. It looks to me like the contributors obviously have a cosmic life agenda, but if they are working scientists and the papers are peer reviewed then its a far cry from Pravda :-)

[RGClark]

The burden of proof falls to those who propose extraordinary ideas.

Indeed it should. However, for many journals merely proposing life on other planets was rejected out of hand. Obviously we don't have definitive evidence that there is life on other planets so you could not prove there was life on other planets, then such articles proposing it were rejected.
This journal allows such speculation on the possibility and the possible scenarios it could happen.


Bob Clark

[RGClark]

My only criticism is that there seems to be very little depth to the papers. The issue to me is not whether the referees are not catching errors, but that there seems to be no minimum academic standard applied.
What I saw a lot of was repeated recitation of known history (aka filler) followed by heavily-cited speculation posing as some sort of scientific conclusion. There was rarely any actual reasoning or data to provide any sort of logical stepping stones to their conclusions; it was as if you had to trust the validity of their overwhelming number of citations.

I haven't read the papers on panspermia which seems to be primary bone of contention about this journal. I read the ones about the Mars life which seem to me to contain lots of useful information.

Bob Clark

[RGClark]

IMO banning links to this journal would be going a little too far. It looks to me like the contributors obviously have a cosmic life agenda, but if they are working scientists and the papers are peer reviewed then its a far cry from Pravda :-)

Agreed. Especially, when you consider the range of topics published in earlier issues:

Journal of Cosmology
Astronomy - Astrobiology
Earth Sciences - Life
http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents.html


Bob Clark

[RGClark]

Yes, it is a panspermia propaganda site. I'd dismiss most of the stuff on there. But not all the articles are written by panspermia proponents; I see one by Ben Goertzel there, about intelligent life on waterworlds. Quite why the panspermia enthusiasts have included his paper I don't quite understand.

Probably because not all the articles are there to promote the "panspermia" hypothesis.

Bob Clark

[RGClark]

Hi Bob, thanks!
I rather like what JoC offers: peer reviewed open access papers from scientists around the world. Yeah, some are speculative and others merely opinion or commentary but all seem grounded in good science.
I'm curious though, what makes this particular issue "special" in your mind?

Not necessarily "special" in terms of great. There I was using the term in the sense used with science journals of focusing on a particular topic.
I like the ones having to do with Mars life. Nice to see other scientists besides Gil Levin at least investigating the idea, not rejecting it out of hand.
This is a good issue for those interested in astrobiology for the range of topics covered.

Bob Clark

[Swift]

I'm going to put my mod hat on for a sec and float something past you guys. To avoid hijacking the thread with too much meta, I'd like feedback on this question by PM. Given what seem to be wide concerns about the practices of this journal, would there be any serious objections if we were to consider disallowing Journal of Cosmology as suspect for the purposes of LiS (the same as we do for Pravda?)

Just in case anyone missed it, Moose wants feedback by PM, not as comments in this thread.

I would suggest that we drop the in-thread discussion about whether this journal should be allowed and general comments about the editorial process. Please restrict comments to the referenced articles, or we'll close this thread.