Subject:  PUBLISHING scientific papers (Bertrand).. 
Date:     Wed, 27 Oct 1999 041411 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
  Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info.

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF2064.B2F851E0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1
Content-ID: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:19:05 +0200
From: Frank Bertrand 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: PUBLISHING.

Dear Guru,

Peter De Pippo has asked good questions.

Firstly to give an overall reply, it is academic scientists who have
(certainly in the medical and dental worlds) virtually stopped everybody
else from publishing articles; the reasons most often given are that an
article is not scientific, or that the references are not adequate.

Peer review means academic review.  Practitioners are virtually blocked
out, although in the history of medicine, they have made great
contributions; they are not scientists but clinicians, and are practical
people.  Some of the articles would require dozens of references, and the
practitioner does not have the time or facilities to provide them.
Academics often boast of the number of papers they have had printed, but
many of these papers are re-hashes from previous papers.

I qualified over 52 years ago, and I have observed how many academics
have virtually taken over the health professions, and I think the same
would apply in other disciplines.   They control the health associations,
and journals.  It is rare for a practitioner to have an article
published.

Big finance also plays a great part, e.g. founding and funding
professorial chairs, and politicians also have a part in this.
When an investigation is made into a controversial topic, a team made up
of academics and/or scientists is formed to carry out the investigation;
it is really not necessary, as you can forecast the findings, which will
be (using cell-phones)--
       " Some alarming and exaggerated reports have been made re: the
safety of cell-phones, the investigators have found no scientific grounds
for these reports, but there may be a very minute percentage of users who,
after many years, may experience some small clinical affects, so there
will be continuous monitoring of cell-phones in the interests of safety;
but the general public may rest assured that there is no danger when
using cell-phones".

What do the investigators get out of this?

The review to publication process will generally kill off the paper.
Independent researchers do not pay, and are not paid. Getting other
outlets is extremely difficult.

Papers read at symposia etc., should be regarded as being published.
A blackout period is virtually permanent.

Accurate research should carry legal merit, but does it?

A researcher should not lose anything by giving an abstract to the
emfguru web site, but be careful of plagiarism.  In fact publishing
papers on  the internet, would be a very good thing to do, as it will be
giving a stale room fresh air.

If a paper is published, it does not necessarily mean that those who
agreed to it being published, agree with it.

It is often difficult to find who is doing research on what and where,
but Guru could perhaps help here re: cell-phones.

Your's sincerely,
Frank Bertrand.


------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF2064.B2F851E0--


Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com