Template:Did you know nominations/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

 * ... that the Elsevier publication Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing has been described as a "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal" that publishes "truly ridiculous studies"?
 * Reviewed: Clay Higgins
 * Comment: DYKcheck seems to be mis-identifying the pre-expansion point. This is the version from the last edit on 18 December, and is 802 characters.  Present version is 5126 characters, so is well over a x5 expansion.  Recent AfD closed as "no consensus", making this article now eligible for a nomination. Source for the hook is this article by David Gorski which states: "Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing is a journal known for its publication of truly ridiculous studies" and also that "it's not enough simply to point out that these three journals are shams masquerading as real scientific journals. You never know. Maybe these three papers are simply awesome ... I'll start with [the one] published in the second woo-iest of the journals, Explore. Or maybe it's the first woo-iest of the journals. After all, it doesn't limit itself to just one quackery, the way Homeopathy does."

5x expanded by EdChem (talk), Randykitty (talk), Jytdog (talk), and Headbomb (talk). Nominated by EdChem (talk) at 15:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC).


 * Per their comments at Talk:Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing, I have removed the credit templates for Randykitty and Headbomb and struck them from the list of expanders. EdChem (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * QPQ for Clay Higgins added.  are you comfortable with credit for this nomination?  EdChem (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes thanks for asking. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I prefer ALT0 to ALT1.  Easter Egg links have been controversial lately and I chose not to name or link to editors to avoid any potential BLP issue. , as the other expander, do you have a view?  Also, as I understand DYK rules, a reviewer can't tick an alternative hook which s/he proposed, unless it is a tweak of the original hook... so much as I would like this to be promoted, if you want ALT1 to be used (ONUnicorn), you'll need to call for a new reviewer to examine just ALT1 (which does not mean you can't use this for QPQ credit, by the way).  EdChem (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear; ALT1 was a suggestion - I am fine with using ALT0, and specifically was approving ALT0. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification,, and the suggested alternative hook. However, and given your clarification, I request the promoter use ALT0.  EdChem (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification,, and the suggested alternative hook. However, and given your clarification, I request the promoter use ALT0.  EdChem (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)