Talk:Progress in Physics

Untitled
The previous page was mostly copied from the first Google hit for "Progress in Physics" (the Geocities site), and I felt the page should be updated. In terms of what makes their journal special, it is much more their approach to science (antiestablishmentarianism) than their field (theoretical physics). Ckerr 08:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Art, quotation out of context is bad quotation. One can read any of the four translations of the declaration and decide for himself. None of us should analyze and push his own views what this declaration says. As I am one of the trasnlators of the declaration in Bulgarian language, I am word-by-word acquainted with the whole text, and I can assure you that the passage taken is out of context. I might as well select 10 other passages, showing that orthodoxy or not, is not the primary criterion for publication of PP. Nor the suggested "pride" of un-orthodoxy is announced in the PP home page, or any other page. The mentioned declaration does not say "all crackpots, please publish with us", the declaration says semantically "all crackpots must be rejected solely on scientific merit of their work, and not on extra-scientific ground, such as lack of affiliation, not having PhD or different other academic degree, nationality, previous known flawed publications, etc.". The Declaration says - let us be fair scientist, looking for the truth, and do not care of extra-scientific un-ethical issues. Danko Georgiev MD 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. I do believe this Declaration deserves its own article in Wikipedia, as this is a manifest that is being under solidary translation in other languages as well, part of this triggered by my Bulgarian translation. See, the last section on Nuclear Weapons, this is exactly what prof. Tabish Qureshi did, so the mentioned declaration is somehow connected with the fact I worked on prof. Qureshi's biography in the past few days. Danko Georgiev MD 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Declaration is one of the headline links on the homepage of PP, and it is signed "Editor-in-Chief of Progress in Physics", so there is no question this is an official declaration of how PP sees itself. You will not find anything like it from any mainline scientific publication. Since this is part of what makes PP unique among journals, we have to give the reader more information than just a link. It is not enough to say how PP is like all other journals, we also have to say how it is different. I think the quotation eloquently summarizes that. Perhaps you have a suggestion for how to include more context in the quotation, or for a different quotation that even better summarizes the contrast to mainline journals? --Art Carlson 08:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Art, what is different in PP? I really am tired of this partisan war. Do you want to derogate the fact that I have published in PP? If so, well. Do not push however your extreme view that PP is "different journal". This may have good or bad meaning. We are NOT here to give our emotional opinions on which journal is good and which journal is bad. I ahve not characterized all possible journal where I have submitted papers, but believe me there is CORRUPTION in the whole publishing system. I have been plagiarized brutally by person who now has won 2 million US $ grant on my back, after rejecting paper of mine in biophysical journal where he was in the editiorial board, and then republishing my rejected ideas from his own name. Please stop this parody! I am quiting this discussion, as you were ridiculing the whole issue of Wikipedia, with inserting your emotional remarks "here and there" because this is "different" and this is not. Either you put objectively everywhere the same labels, or stop puting labels at all. I don't like it, and do not support your labeling edits. Of course you may do whatever you wish, and put whatever you wish labels. I will edit peacefully on contributing and expanding the good content in Wikiepdia and will not lose my time in argueing with you. You won! I hope someone will stop you soon or later from doing what you are doing. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 09:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. I am positively thinking person I prefer to gether positive and good information, in sense write down all the good stuff about a person, or something. I think it is corrupted practice to look around for gossips in the web, and then add some "picant" but unverifiable information on blackening someone's name. However, I do not understand why you support a person who has promoted in yellow press in a huge propaganda some false scientific ideas, and who collects yellow press articles on his web page. No normal scientist is proud of what yellow press writes about him. All self-respective scientists collect modestly only published works on their web pages [plus several preprints] and then leave the reader decide the value of the published content. If one is not interested in sacience, I don't understand why this personality will ever read material discussing science, at first place. Danko Georgiev MD 09:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, I never said that PP is "bad" (at least not in a Wiki article). I said it is unorthodox. You, in contrast, just said that the "whole publishing system" is "CORRUPT". If you think that PP is a rare exception to that statement, then we agree that it is different from other journals. And if your personal attack is aimed at Afshar, I don't know in what sense I have ever "supported" him. I am still undecided on the scientific issue. --Art Carlson 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Art, let us not be involved in denying the obvious facts. There is no personal attack in my claims. However your post that "PP prides with opposition to the orthodox views" is NOT even personal attack, it is a deliberate ridicule of PP. The sarcasm is obvious in your note, regardless of the fact whether you agree or disagree, I have requested you several times to delete it, yet you seem to be very fond of your edit. I am forced to conclude you have stuck to this comment, not because of its objectivity, but exactly because it is a "little victory" of yours. Then please keep it, but don't think I will be polited by your behavior. Danko Georgiev MD 08:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks: You wrote, for example: "No normal scientist is proud of what yellow press writes about him." WP:NPA says this: "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. ... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Your statement is directed at Afshar himself, not at his arguments. You call him "not normal". You use the inflamatory phrase "yellow press". Maybe you honestly don't realize it, but these are personal attacks and out-of-place in Wikipedia.
 * "prides itself": This is an ordinary English phrase that is not even derogatory, much less "deliberate ridicule" or "sarcasm". It is possible that as a non-native speaker you understand this phrase differently. There may be a better way to express this thought, but I can't think of it. Maybe "encourages", "strives for", or simply "questions orthodox views"? If you don't like this formulation, can you try to be more constructive by suggesting an alternative?
 * Finally, please keep in mind that you should assume good faith. --Art Carlson 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Balance
I suspected that editing this page might open a can of worms! There are a few points I would like to make, in support of why I reverted Danko's changes.

First, Danko should probably not be editing the page, for the same reason that congressional staffers are not allowed to edit their employer's page, individuals are not allowed to edit their own pages, etc.--a conflict of interest. Although it is true I am part of the commercialized scientific establishment, and therefore (according to PP) have inherent bias, I hadn't heard about PP until several days ago, and I certainly have no particularly strong feelings for or against it.

Second, Danko made the comment that people should read the declaration and interpret it for themselves. Ideally, yes; but the whole point of an encylcopedia is to summarize primary sources. Personally, I don't think the quote is taken out of context; the context of the declaration is much the same as the quote.

Third, I believe it can be reasonably objectively stated that Art's version was more NPOV than Danko's. There was not a single word in anything that I or Art wrote that could only be interpreted negatively ("unorthodox" is not a synonym for "bad"!). Ckerr 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Ckerr, IF you are biased as part of the commercialized science, so I should be classified as commercialized scientist too, as I am in academic position at Kanazawa University [check my profile]. However, I think that even IF I am part of the commercialized and corrupted system, I CAN VOICE MY OPINION that all this is WRONG, and soon or later must stop. Concerning the excerpt, yes, it is out of context, the Declaration contains total of 12 articles, so there is word against "taking awards and corruptions when publishing, or peer-reviewing papers" [for peer-reviewers], there is article that research advisors, should have consultatory role, and NOT impose their own ideas on the PhD students that they patronize, also there is word AGAINST inserting co-authors never contributed - yes, this is 80% practice of all published work, most of the co-authors have never heard of what is going on in the paper at first place, and last but not least, there is word against nuclear weapons, and that scientist IF forced to work for such agenda, THEN they are morally responsible to RUIN the development of such weapons, and there is article that "for voicing of your free opinion as human" the institutions should NOT be able to fire you from the academic institution. This is so because you have this freedom of speech as basic human right, they should fire you ONLY IF you are incompetent researcher, etc. i.e. ONLY on scientific grounds. I am NOT biased, but you want to quote about the Declaration, please open new Wiki article, and then please present unbiased view of the basic principles stated in the declaration. Now, Art uses his subtle manipulations, to derogate the PP journal, as on another page he included his/yours? original thought that conveys BAD meaning i.e. "This journal PRIDES itself as opposing the orthodox views" as IF implying that only crackpots publish in PP. Let us be honest, and be objective. I don't mind being reverted, but then, I wish to expand the whole article and include citations on other MUCH MORE important points, than the mentioned "out of context" passage. The "orthodox" is synonymous to ALL this corruption, supression, and the CONTEXT of this "orthodoxy" should be understood from the Declaration only! "Orthodox" is metaphor used by prof. Rabounski, to ridicule the current corruption in academic circles! If we are honest scientist we should NOT "put our heads in the sand". Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. In the whole Declaration "orthodox" is metaphor, so the quotation literally is out of context. So I would like to insert footnote, that in the original text "orthodox" stands for academic corruption, unethical behjavior by peer-reviewer, pseudo-coauthorship, etc. etc. I believe this clarifies sufficiently my thesis. It should be understood literally, "orthodox" has NOT its common-sense meaning [whatever that may be]. Danko Georgiev MD 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed?
The journal describes itself as being peer-reviewed. (see http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/rules.html) However, all the articles I checked (quite a few) had an extremely small delay between submission and acceptance dates. There is no way that the papers are being reviewed by external referees. Therefore, I propose deleting peer-reviewed from the page (or else saying that the journal describes itself as being peer-reviewed but that this appears not to be the case). comments? Timb66 03:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all papers are with short peer-review period. By the way, the fact that one loses 2 years for peer-reviewing is NOT good criterion either. Simply nobody cares to read the manuscript, and finally because of various reasons such as affiliation of authors, vested interests, etc. papers get published - such examples can be provided from various physical journals, with the published paper being obvious nonsense. Don't forget the Bogdanoff affair. The peer-review period does not adequately represent the quality of peer-reviewing. I have myself performed the function of peer-reviewer and my delays with comments were usually in couple of days [up to 5]. So it depends on the quality of the peer-reviewer and whether he understands the topic of the submitted article. Will you claim that I as peer-reviewer am not doing my job correctly? And last but not least, as I personally have such inside information some notable professor being peer-reviewer who returns the paper of 30 days, does actually peer review it all the time - he does the job for no more than couple of hours at the end of 30 day period, the rest of the time, the manuscript waits somewhere on a shelf. Danko Georgiev MD 05:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note also that some authors thank the editorial board members for useful discussions and suggestions. Obviously the editorial board members are acquainted with the manuscripts long before their "final submission". This seems to explain why appearent peer-review time is shorter than actually it is. Danko Georgiev MD 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You make some interesting points, but this is not the place for a discussion on the merits of peer reviewing or the helpfulness of editors. The question is simple: is there any evidence that POP is peer reviewd, according the usual definition of the term? If not, the Wiki article should either omit the term or give some clarifcation. There is no way that a board of 4 editors can be experts in all areas in which papers are submitted. If most papers are not sent to external referees then they have not been peer reviewed. Timb66 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Timb66, please feel free to ask personally the Editor-In-Chief for how the peer-reviewing proceeds. Any personal opinion like mine or yours is just "opinion" and does not deserve to be included in encyclopedia. I have seen that some of the last posted online papers have peer-reviewing of more than 1 month. Also, most of papers are on relativity and cosmology [Big Bang one], and be aware that the Editor-In-Chief has published advanced textbooks on relativity. I don't think there is evidence the journal is not peer-reviewed. Danko Georgiev MD 07:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, fair enough, I am happy to let it stand. Thanks Timb66 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'm not happy to let it stand. Unless you can quote from the web site a statement that it's peer reviewed, it has to go.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. It's still probably not a WP:RS, but it claims to be peer-reviewed.  Added a cite to the lead, and I'll let it go, for the moment. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, fine with me Timb66 23:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Removal of the link requires elimination of the statement that it's peer-reviewed, because it's not plausible that "alternative" journals are peer-reviewed. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See, for example, Journal of Scientific Exploration for an alternative statement on peer review. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Rubin, sorry but "ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology" ARE NOT SCIENCE - I target here your irrelevant pointing to Journal of Scientific Exploration!!! Read carefully the first section on my talk page. Let us NOT confuse science and pseudoscience. The PP journal is not alternative in sense "journal for idiots, and frauds", it says that it will publish mathematical models that are not necessary to be accepted by mainstream science. Please be sure you understand the BIG difference between fringe science and pseudoscience. At the time when Einstein published in 1905 his special relativity, this was "fringe" i.e. unlikely according to the mass of authorities. In 1916, after experiment confirmed GR, relativity became "mainstream". FRINGE SCIENCE CAN BECOME MAINSTREAM, BUT PSEUDOSCIENCE CAN NEVER BECOME MAINSTREAM BECAUSE IT IS NOT SCIENCE AT FIRST PLACE!!! I hope now you will stop this farce, and do NOT push extreme views. I suspect Smarandache's name is the main "target" but Smarandache is scientist, and not idiot. I do not support your speculations in the main article on PP. regards, Danko Georgiev MD 10:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says "The journal describes itself as peer-reviewed, but the review procedure is not specified." This implies that a journal is not peer-reviewed when its review procedure is not specified. But the former doesn't follow from the latter logically, and in any case there is no evidence given to support that, so I added "(However, note that it is possible for a journal to be peer-reviewed when its review procedure is not specified.)" The article says "The referees of the papers published are not listed, although anonymity of referees is specifically criticized in "Article 8: Freedom to publish scientific results" of the Declaration of Academic Freedom". This implies that the journal doesn't follow its Declaration of Academic Freedom, which doesn't seem to be the case because the Declaration doesn't criticize the ommission of a list of referees for published papers, but rather only criticizes referees being anonymous to the authors. So I added "(However, the anonymity of referees is criticized only in terms of referees being hidden to the author, and not to the reader of a published paper.)" These changes make the article more accurate, although it may be better to remove the original statements that illogically imply misbehavior on the part of the journal. --Waryealis (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I undid my edits, as it turns out that the journal is guilty of the same censorship and rudeness noted in its Declaration of Academic Freedom. Waryealis (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No need for links to translation of "Declaration of Academic Freedom"?
I don't think the article needs links to all the translations. There are links from the English version to all the other ones. Timb66 09:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I changed it. (And provided a hint in the footnote.) --Art Carlson 10:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Danko Georgiev MD 09:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To anyone reading this article wondering about Progress in Physics ...
This journal is absolute BULLSHIT. Please do not take it seriously. Consider it The Onion of the physics world. Given that our lives are so short and fleeting, I can't believe actual human beings have wasted their valuable time creating such gibberish. It's almost a crime. Anyway, feel free to expand the article. I will not add any of my diatribe to the actual article because I don't have a source (unless I decide to write an op-ed piece about this). 129.162.1.41 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above posted anonymous edit is added from someone living in San Antonio, Texas, USA. Just provide some info about the anonymous user. Danko Georgiev MD 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The above is completely correct. This journal is a dismaying example of the downside of desk-top publishing, print-on-demand and the internet itself. It is a front for the sort of 'scientist' who would previously have had to rant at passing traffic or persuade a gullible journalist to fall for his demented theory. It has also completely undermined the traditional fail-safe of peer-review. Here, the latter term simply means 'approved by similarly-minded crackpots'. The world of genuine scientific journal publishing really should try to catch up with these appalling changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.61.138 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Copied from the article page: Highly biased article, which does not present official statement of PP, but rather reflects personal reading of Declaration of Scientific Freedom by some of the wiki-editors. PP is 2 years old journal, and does not need Wikipedia entry on its own, as Wikipedia does not contain articles on every recently opened peer-reviewed journal. If in the next years PP gains some official reputation status, it may be again covered in Wikipedia. Danko Georgiev MD 04:55, 14 July 2007

I vote against deletion. The original article was clearly put here by someone closely associated with the journal. It has since been edited to be less biased and is now quite good, in my view. This journal is notable because of its unusual "Declaration of Scientific Freedom" and as such, deserves a Wiki page, whether or not it ever "gains some official reputation status". Timb66 08:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Timb66, Several lines above your post such a comment appeared "This journal is absolute BULLSHIT. Please do not take it seriously." I have tried to censor the "BULLSHIT" because it contains the word "SHIT" but User:Mathsci reverted my censorship. Obviously too many editors, want to attach the word "SHIT" and thus I think deletion is necessary, so they don't have where to spit. This is not yellow press magazine where one must spit over the journals, if you want to keep the entry, you should write a much more positive comment, and saying "this journal is notable necause of his Declaration" but not say "this is alternative "SHIT" journal .." because of this declaration. As most wikieditors are BIASED and don't make difference between these two, I vote for deletion. Danko Georgiev MD 10:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Danko, I think the decision on whether to delete the page should be made on the contents of the article page, not the contents of the talk page (which most Wiki readers never read). Can other editors please record their votes in this section? Timb66 09:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Timb66, I think if the article is to be considered for deletion it must also have an entry on WP:AfD. The three step process is described here. I would vote STRONG KEEP. --Mathsci 11:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this excrescence of the lunatic fringe should be removed. Ever since desk-top publishing and the internet removed traditional barriers to publishing, crackpots have taken advantage of them in order to found fake academic journals which 'rubber-stamp' their worthless ideas. 'Peer-review' is now a meaningless term and safeguard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.54.156 (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the article saved me from reading a likely nonsense paper, because I checked Wikipedia on the Journal before. Please keep the page. Peter.steier (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement by Georgiev
On March 28 2007 Georgiev inserted several sentences into this article, including:

The editorial board is composed of Dmitri Rabounski (Editor-in-Chief), Florentin Smarandache, Larissa Borissova, and Stephen J. Crothers, currently working mathematicians at Department of Mathematics, University of New Mexico.

The statement about UNM was pure invention on the part of Georgiev and was later removed by me in my one edit to this article. I have never edited this talk page until now, contrary to the other untrue claim by Georgiev above. Could Georgiev kindly calm down, stop inventing things or misrepresenting WP editors. Mathsci 18:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It also seems highly unlikely that articles, such as the following flaming summary by editor Stephen J. Crothers from his 2006 article "A brief history of black holes", have been peer reviewed:

Neither the layman nor the specialist, in general, have any knowledge of the historical circumstances underlying the genesis of the idea of the Black Hole. Essentially, almost all and sundry simply take for granted the unsubstantiated allegations of some ostentatious minority of the relativists. Unfortunately, that minority has been rather careless with the truth and is quite averse to having its claims corrected, notwithstanding the documentary evidence on the historical record. Furthermore, not a few of that vainglorious and disingenuous coterie, particularly amongst those of some notoriety, attempt to dismiss the testimony of the literature with contempt, and even deliberate falsehoods, claiming that history is of no importance. The historical record clearly demonstrates that the Black Hole has been conjured up by combination of confusion, superstition and ineptitude, and is sustained by widespread suppression of facts, both physical and theoretical. The following essay provides a brief but accurate account of events, verifiable by reference to the original papers, by which the scandalous manipulation of both scientific and public opinion is revealed.


 * Indeed this seems to show all the tell-tale signs of a crackpot article. --Mathsci 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mathsci, I made a typo, it has been Arthur Rubin who reverted my edit, it can be seen here. Concerning other points of yours, you must call someone crackpot if you localize a mathematical error in his calculations, you cannot call him a crackpot because he publishes articles in which is provided a "proof" that black holes cannot be solution of Einstein's equations. I am NOT competent to check the paper by Crothers, so I do not have position on this topic. However IF he is wrong, there shall be published an exact formula or assumption in his calculation that is wrong, and it is highly unscientific people like you to repeat - "it is wrong, it is crackpot .." because this is evidence of other things ... :-)) regards, Danko Georgiev MD 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. I have allowed myself to add link to the pdf of Crothers article in Mathsci's post. I have read it, and it seems very amuzing, with a lot of historical facts, which actually seem to imply that there is error and solutionj obtained by Hilbert is attributed to Swarzschild erronously. What is of greater scientific value for me, however is the question - is it really mathematically inconsistent to have the Hilbert's solution, or Crothers has overlooked something. As before, I cannot answer this question, but I think if one publish disproval of Crothers this will be itself a good paper and people will learn how NOT to think in relativity. I see however no link between Crothers paper and the debate Unruh-Georgiev. Danko Georgiev MD 03:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. 2 And not to forget, Mathsci or vonneumann, your posts at PlanetMath are amuzing too. Danko Georgiev MD 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Georgiev, you are currently engaged in disruptive behaviour on the wikipedia. Please stop or you will probably be blocked.
 * STOP EDITING OTHER EDITORS' TALK CONTRIBUTIONS. This is completely deprecated. If you want to add a link, put it in one of your own posts.
 * Stop misrepresenting editors. I removed the erroneous part of the sentence, not Arthur Rubin, as can be seen by examining the article history. This kind of misrepresentation is again bad form.
 * Stop being inconsistent. You cannot write that a WP article is "highly polished" one week and then a little later. after no changes have been made, put it up for deletion. This looks like quite irrational and moody behaviour. The same applies here.
 * Stop evading the issue. I made a reference to the highly inflammatory style of an abstract which makes preposterous claims, not to the content of the main article (which has been discredited in detail elsewhere). Such an abstract would never be allowed in a peer reviewed journal.

FYI Crothers is a well known crank who was expelled from an Australian PhD programme and has since teamed up with another crackpot Myron Evans. As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together.

You also seem a little confused. This page is the discussion page for the alternative journal Progress in Physics. We are discussing the merits of this journal, its peer review policy, its editors and its contributors. Why on earth are you mentioning other unrelated matters? --Mathsci 07:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey vonneumann, if you are not a crackpot, then why don't you tell us your name. p.s. "vonneumann" = "Mathsci". p.s.2 I could suggest you more interesting nicknames when registering in other scientific forums "nobelprizewinner", "greatmathpro", "superpromath", ... p.s.3 Do not treathen with banning or blocking other editors. regards, Danko Georgiev MD 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you cannot know my real name, but yes I use the pseudonym vonneumann on PlanetMath. Another WP editor verified my professional status on my first talk archive. Please look there if that's what's worrying you. BTW if I really wanted to be immediately identified as a crackpot, I would probably start using a pseudonym like dankomed. :-)))) --Mathsci 12:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP vandal
May I second Arthur Rubin's revert. We have a wikipedia vandal in our midst. --Mathsci 10:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. 133.28.19.** = cf5.kanazawa-u.ac.jp = Doctor Georgiev. --Mathsci 10:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fringe science and pseudophysics
It was decided by consensus in the AfD that this article should only be kept if it was made abundantly clear that this journal dealt with fringe science and pseudophysics. That is why the categories are present. Asking for "secondary sources" stating this is disingenuous, disruptive and trollish. The fact that banned authors from the Cornell arXiv like Carlos Castro and Steven J. Crothers contribute and are even editors is a clear indication of the nature of the journal. The "statement of purpose" cited in the article also makes this clear: it is inflammatory and smacks of conspiracy theory. An inflammatory article by Danko Georgiev, with no formal training in physics, was refuted by the eminent physicist Bill Unruh in the same journal. As an example of the explicit rejection of accepted mainstream physics and the non-standard inflammatory tone, here is the summary of an article called "A brief history of black holes" by Steven J. Crothers, who according to his own accounts was expelled from a Ph.D. programme in the University of New South Wales:

"Neither the layman nor the specialist, in general, has any knowledge of the historical circumstances underlying the genesis of the idea of the black hole. Essentially, almost all and sundry simply take for granted the unsubstantiated allegations of some ostentatious minority of the relativists. Unfortunately, the minority has been rather careless with the truth and is quite averse to having its claims corrected, notwithstanding the documentary evidence on the historical record. Furthermore, not a few of that vainglorious and disingenuous coterie, particularly amongst those of some notoriety, attempt to dismiss the testimony of the literature with contempt, and even deliberate falsehoods, claiming that history is of no importance. The historical record clearly demonstrates that the black hole has been conjured up by combination of confusion, superstition and ineptitude, and is sustained by widespread suppression of facts, both physical and theoretical. The following essay provides a brief but accurate account of events, verifiable by reference to the original papers, by which the scandalous manipulation of both scientific and public opinion is revealed."

Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5cz2.htm. I knew that Catt morphed from a good scientist into a crackpot. I did not know that the same thing happened to Einstein when he started to rock the boat. Only recently I did a Google search for einstein + senile. 400,000 hits. The founder of Wikipedia said he wanted "peer reviewed material", not knowing the Wick entry on T S Kuhn. - Ivor Catt  28 July 2016  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.32.208 (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits by User:DS1000
Only material from verifiable sources can be added to this article. Otherwise it counts as WP:OR. Some of the material added seems potentially libellous. The statement by the editors describes the journal as an alternative to other mainstream journals; it does not describe itself as a fringe journal. Some of its articles can be identified as fringe physics, for example the article cited above. The correspondence between Gerhard Bruhn and Rabounski can be added as an external link, but cannot be used as a source for the article, let alone the vastly exaggerated summary included in the text. Mathsci (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources are from G.Bruhm at the University of Darmstadt: http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/toRabounski030508.html. If you feel so strongly about Rabounski being libelled by the page, at least leave the external links alone. Also, the journal has already been included in the list of fringe journals, so you should leave the label at the beginning of the article alone. DS1000 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dr. Bruhm seems to have reprinted E-mail from the editor without explicit permission. I have no objections to the external links, but they don't directly support your assertion, even if they were not published solely by Dr. Bruhm, and so, per WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB, cannot be used to support an assertion about the editor, a (presumably) living person.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent/ec) Hello. The external link to Gerhard Bruhn's page was put there by me and has never been removed. Click on the "example of peer review" to see it. I only said potentially libellous: the rules of WP:BLP apply here to statements about the conduct of living scientists and in this case you used the phrase "mainstream scientists" in the text, giving only the example of Gerhard Bruhn, who has retired. These rules are strict and have nothing to do with me or my feelings. The categories fringe scientific journals, fringe physics or pseudophysics have long been attached to this journal. At the AfD, it was decided that this journal was only notable for its notoriety. The consensus was that it fell into the categories above. The AfD discussion is archived somewhere, but I'm not quite sure where. I think you would probably feel morally uplifted by reading it :) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Self Published Sources
In addition to the existing over-reliance on primary sources template, I'm adding the self-published sources template as while self published sources could be appropriate in this context, so long as they were in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF, the ones here appear both unduly self-serving and the basis for much of the information in the article.Darthkayak (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)