----- Original Message ----- From: "David Goodman" <[email protected]> <snip>> > We should also remember that in addition to "all the amateur stuff > unleashed on the web with all the best intentions" there is also quite a > bit of similar stuff in the refereed journal literature. For example, > polywater, cold fusion and HIV as a non-cause of AIDS have all in > referred journals (of different publishers). > > David Goodman <[email protected]>
Some wrong material gets through the review, and the proportion depends on the quality of the journal - which is one reason that authors want to be in the best journals to gain acceptance of their work. The proportion of nonsense on the Web is much higher than in even a poorly edited journal, and the two forms of publication shouldn't be equated in this sense. Two or three times a year, I see discussions on science-oriented newsgroups on whether glass flows. All the evidence to the contrary doesn't stop the believers from bringing it up again. That kind of thing doesn't last long in the refereed literature. The second two examples Goodman gave were immediately recognized as wrong, and - as I recall - the first cold fusion article wasn't reviewed, contrary to the policy of that journal. The polywater flurry ended when the checking system of science came up with the facts. Pseudoscience of all kinds doesn't correct itself - it selectively ignores evidence.
