How to deal with published (and indexed) baloney?

[mind]

There is an entire volume of AIP Conferences full of baloney. The volume is indexed by several agencies, like NASA ASD, Scopus, etc.

How does one deal with it? I'm thinking of putting a comment on arxiv.org, but I'm willing to comment only on one paper, because I do not want to spend time checking in detail other papers.

I'm wondering why wouldn't AIP filter the garbage? I've read how APS meetings are open to anyone (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22171039), but the papers in this volume are so obviously wrong, that if one would want them to be correct, one should change the mathematics as well.

 

[Garth]

Do you want to be more specific and give a reference to the volume and why you think it is baloney?

Garth

 

[mind]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather not be specific on the volume, because I want the question to be general. If I recall correctly, a few years ago there was an almost self-published journal (editor published his own papers) by Elsevier that had a lot of baloney, and many people complained on receiving this journal with the bulk subscription. What I want to point at is not the publisher, but the already published and archived baloney.

I know that it is baloney (not a mistake in calculations), because papers earn many points in John Baez's crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). Although this index is not so scientific, I can assure you that for some of the papers there to work, one needs to develop a new kind of mathematics, which might accept inconsistencies.

 

[DiracPool]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather not be specific on the volume, because I want the question to be general. If I recall correctly, a few years ago there was an almost self-published journal (editor published his own papers) by Elsevier that had a lot of baloney, and many people complained on receiving this journal with the bulk subscription. What I want to point at is not the publisher, but the already published and archived baloney.

I know that it is baloney (not a mistake in calculations), because papers earn many points in John Baez's crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). Although this index is not so scientific, I can assure you that for some of the papers there to work, one needs to develop a new kind of mathematics, which might accept inconsistencies.

Elsevier isn't "baloney." I've personally published in and refereed articles in Elsevier journals. For your information, Gallileo published his last book while under house arrest in Elsevier, he had to have it smuggled out of his house and transported to the Netherlands.

Edit: and the poor guy was blind at that point. He is quoted as saying that he had expanded the universe for ordinary mortals a 100-fold, and now he was confined to the extent of his bodily skin

 

[mind]

The journal published by Elsevier I had in mind is Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Chaos.2C_Solitons_.26_Fractals). I am not saying that Elsevier nor AIP are baloney publishers. I am saying that sometimes they publish baloney.
So, my question is: how does one act when one finds published and indexed baloney? By baloney I mean things that, for example, try to prove Theory of Relativity wrong, while those things have elementary mathematical mistakes. Based on what they write, I am not sure that authors of those papers are able for rational discussion.