Well, I like how you think. Try to find something that's unbiased as an indicator. Unfortunately, that doesn't work so well for things like cold fusion. For instance, look at this comment
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-reveals-declining-high-impact-factor.html natello <http://phys.org/profile/user/natello/> - 1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012 The high impact journals tend to be as rigorous and reliable, as possible. These journals are enforcing the deterministic approach in most stringent way. The high impact journals tend to specialize to most deterministic connections, models and phenomena. But just these observations are more and more rare. You can get a lotta more knowledge from experimentally oriented articles published in 2nd grade journals. This particularly applies to cold fusion, which has no theory developed yet. Therefore no article about cold fusion may appear in mainstream journal, because it wouldn't fit the criteria of mainstream journals rigor. This indeed slows down the progress in this research area, because the scientists are valued by their impact today. And just this new fundamental and very important research has a lowest amount of theory developed, so it cannot get high impact. The editors of high-impact journals are essentially saying with it: don't publish original findings and results there. The article itself is actually pretty interesting. Excerpt: Study reveals declining influence of high impact factor journals Nov 07, 2012 [image: Study reveals declining influence of high impact factor journals] Vincent Larivière The most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the world, such as *Cell*, * Nature*, *Science*, and the *Journal of the American Medical Association* (* JAMA*), have less and less influence amongst scientists, according to a paper co-authored by Vincent Larivière, a professor at the University of Montreal's School of Library and Information Sciences. He questions the relationship between journal "impact factor" and number of citations subsequently received by papers. "In 1990, 45% of the top 5% most cited articles were published in the top 5% highest impact factor journals. In 2009, this rate was only 36%," Larivière said. "This means that the most cited articles are published less exclusively in high impact factor journals." The proportion of these articles published in major scholarly journals has sharply declined over the last twenty years. His study was based on a sample of more than 820 million citations and 25 million articles published between 1902 and 2009. The findings were published in the *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology*. For each year analysed in the study, Larivière evaluated the strength of the relationship between article citations in the two years following publication against the journal <http://phys.org/tags/journal/> impact factor. Then, he compared the proportion of the most cited articles published in the highest impact factor journals. "Using various measures, the goal was to see whether the 'predictive' power of impact factor on citations received by articles has changed over the years," Larivière said. "From 1902 to 1990, major findings were reported in the most prominent journals," notes Larivière. But this relationship is less true today." Larivière and his colleagues George Lozano and Yves Gingras of UQAM's Observatoire des sciences et des technologies also found that the decline in high impact factor journals began in the early 90s, when the Internet experienced rapid growth within the scientific community. "Digital technology <http://phys.org/tags/digital+technology/> has changed the way researchers are informed about scientific texts. Historically, we all subscribed to paper journals. Periodicals were the main source for articles, and we didn't have to look outside the major journals," Larivière noted. "Since the advent of Google Scholar, for example, the process of searching information has completely changed. Search engines provide access to all articles, whether or not they are published in prestigious journals." Impact factor as a measure of a journal's influence was developed in the 1960s by Eugene Garfield, one of the founders of bibliometrics. "It is basically the average number of times a journal's articles are cited over a two-year period," Larivière explained. "Initially, this indicator was used to help libraries decide which journals to subscribe to. But over time, it began to be used to evaluate researchers and determine the value of their publications." The importance of impact factor is so ingrained in academia's collective consciousness that researchers themselves use impact factor to decide which journals they will submit their articles to. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, blaze spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com>wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor > > How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum impact > factor? > > How about an impact factor of at least 15? > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is >> willing. >> >> >> >> http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html >> >> How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? >> I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing >> out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker < >> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Ahhh, action. I love it! >>> >>> A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll >>> need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in >>> if you are. >>> >>> As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.orgfor >>> someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it >>> (Paypal?) >>> >>> Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You >>>> may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion >>>> articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was >>>> verified by Carl. >>>> >>>> So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the >>>> 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money >>>> and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? >>>> >>>> Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle >>>> upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. >>>> >>>> Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy >>>> density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed >>>> publication? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How I Made Money from Cold Fusion >>>> Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ >>>> views >>>> Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo >>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker < >>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> As a possible set of parameters to this bet: >>>>> >>>>> I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs >>>>> doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally >>>>> believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density >>>>> matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of >>>>> error). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker < >>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven >>>>>> this year? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd >>>>>> mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge >>>>>> as to who wins by EOY. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Blaze. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
