Jump to content

Talk:NeuroQuantology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Polymath uk (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 29 September 2020 (→Does this journal even exist?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

Dear Editor, I am NeuroQuantology journal editor. I think that, you should be globally to the NeuroQuantology. NeuroQuantology is eighty years old journal and accepted many scientific index:

Science Citation Index
ISI Web of Science
Neuroscience Citation Index
PsycINFO
SCOPUS
EMBASE
EBSCO Publishing
DOAJ
Index Copernicus

So and, may be we have, borderline paper about secience and pseudoscience. NeuroQuantology takes a deliberately different approach to review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. NeuroQuantology will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In NeuroQuantology, the authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer': choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted.

We use peer usage versus peer review BMJ 2007; 335:451: "Traditionally, editorial review is the main alternative to peer review. A scientist editor or editorial team applies a sieve, with varying degrees of selectivity, to research submissions. Strictly, this process should not attempt to predict whether ideas and facts are "true," because truth can be established only in retrospect. Instead, editorial selection works within constraints of subject matter on the basis of factors such as potential importance and interest, clarity and appropriateness of expression, and broad criteria of scientific plausibility. Even probably untrue papers may be judged worth publishing if they contain aspects (ideas, perspectives, and data) that are potentially stimulating to the development of future science.

Dear Crusio, thanks for the clean-up. I saw that the article was self-written by Dr. Tarlaci, and looked like self-promotion. I tried to insert only verifiable content and added few references, one of which is published in Lancet Neurology and is of high impact [the text is not free however, I can provide by e-mail if needed]. The category is correctly defined as frindge science, here no harm intended by me, some articles are possibly important, but the majority are not mainstream science. As of 2010 NeuroQuantology is paid, possibly because it is covered by Thompson. I personally dislike paid journals, but the content before 2010 seems to be still open access. Danko Georgiev (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseodoscience?

It seems pretty obvious that this journal is devoted to pseudoscience. Some articles I stumbled across:

1) "Quantum Logic of the Unconscious and Schizophrenia," http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/550.

2) "It's not pseudoscience" The author aims to refute a physicist's critique of "neuroquantology". Whether the critique is a good one or not, this can give a start to the debate. "Pseudoscience and Victor Stenger’s Quantum Gods: Mistaken, Misinformed and Misleading," http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/272. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added materials from Hassani which directly comment on this journal as typical of pseudoscience publications. @Randykitty: would you please weigh in here? It appears to me that we have another Explore here. EdChem (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have shortened your text a little bit (the article is not about Hassani), but apart from that, looks fine to me. If I have time, I'll update the ranking in the lead, but I am currently traveling and don't have much time for WP. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material was removed since, but I have restored it, also making its verification more obvious. I also tagged the article for WikiProject Skepticism. I'm unsure if the wording of the first paragraph is adequate, because it presents it unambiguously as peer reviewed science, which is incorrect. —PaleoNeonate – 13:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randykitty: you appear to keep removing criticism from this article. Please see WP:PARITY. —PaleoNeonate – 18:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That criticism is A/ trivial (who cares about the affiliation of the EIC) and B/ Not sourced to reliable sources (ResearchGate and a blog). Please see WP:OR and WP:POV. Note that I did leave the "claptrap" reference, even though this comes perilously close to WP:SYNTH. The ranking info and the Norwegian rating kill this journal quite effectively, so there is no need to make this even more of a hatchet job. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm I just checked two pseudoscience-related encyclopedias without finding a mention of NeuroQuantology. I'll add a note at WP:FTN to gather more input, there may be better sources for this or a better way to put it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How can it be original research when it's a summary of a third party source? —PaleoNeonate – 18:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: also, you are the one contesting the status quo: I was not the author of that text, but have repeatedly had to reinsert or clarify it (over the years I think) as it was questionned and removed... —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What text is that? I don't see that in the current version (or the old). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There might be debates about sourcing, but this is not WP:SYNTH/WP:OR in the least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Commenting about the competences of editorial board members without a third-party source is OR/SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is a source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blog. Do we have any evidence that this is a reliable source? We have no article on its author, Sadri Hassani. --Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is where WP:PARITY may be relevant. What BLP issues? The article is about a journal. —PaleoNeonate – 19:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that somebody (a living person) is being untruthful about something, that is a BLP issue, no matter what the article itself is about. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hassani questions credentials that's true. I would have no problem to attribute it as his opinion. —PaleoNeonate – 19:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hassani is a professor emeritus of physics, and wrote a bunch of articles on pseudoscience in Physics Today and elsewhere, so he's self-published expert sources, at least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Skeptical Inquirer, which is a pretty reliable source. He's clearly published on the issue of fringe science in reliable sources. --tronvillain (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you asked in the edit summary, WP:SYNTH does not apply because what was in the article is an accurate summary of what was in the source. There was no one combining material "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", as far as I can tell. Oh wait, the link to the current advisory and editorial board contains names not in the source, so it would be synthesis to combine the two with the implication that the article from 2015 applies to the current advisory board. Perhaps something like "in 2015." --tronvillain (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trash

In support of my recent reversion in which I labelled this journal as "trash" (which it is), the 2016 Journal Citation Reports places it 249th out of 259 journals in the field of neuroscience. It's impact factor (0.586) is laughable. Essential Science Indicators ranks it as 331st out of 345 journals in the field of "neuroscience and behavior". The editorial board looks as dubious as fwck, but all we have is one blog post to that effect. Personally, I am torn between deleting this article because this is such a patently sh!t journal and wanting to keep it as a necessary antidote to a lot of paid-for cr@p on the internet that says it's unlocking the mysteries of the universe. Thoughts? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is trash, yes, but it's notable trash. So it belong on Wikipedia, with sourcing explaining it's trash. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this journal even exist?

None of the external links work. Is this journal still in existence? Polymath uk (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:NeuroQuantology&oldid=980966084"