Is the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics credible?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter houlahound
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Journal
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the credibility of the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, particularly in light of its citation by individuals who challenge established scientific theories, such as relativity. Participants express concerns about the journal's editorial board and the legitimacy of specific papers published within it.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the journal's credibility, particularly due to its citation by individuals who refute relativity.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the lack of transparency about the editorial board's credentials.
  • One participant argues that legitimate sources can be misused by individuals who misunderstand or misinterpret them, citing examples from other scientific discussions.
  • Another participant questions the legitimacy of a specific paper that allegedly splits photons into positive and negative charges, suggesting it may not be a credible source.
  • Some participants defend Elsevier as a reputable academic publisher, arguing that it would not maintain its business if its journals were unreliable.
  • There is a challenge to identify specific papers cited in the discussion, with some participants noting that the cited paper does not appear to have been published in the journal in question.
  • One participant emphasizes that the journal itself may be credible, but misinterpretations by readers do not reflect on the journal's quality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the credibility of the journal and the specific papers discussed. While some defend the journal and its publisher, others express doubts about its legitimacy and the interpretations of its content.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the specific papers cited and their publication status in the journal. The discussion highlights the complexity of assessing credibility based on individual interpretations and the context in which sources are used.

houlahound
Messages
907
Reaction score
223
Papers from this journal a being quoted by a guy that refutes relativity. I know right red flag, lots of pros here so I thought if someone would vouch for this journal it might save me time trying to critique the papers.

The editorial board has editors from all around the world, there credentials are not mentioned. Some at uni Colorado.

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics/
 
Physics news on Phys.org
houlahound said:
Papers from this journal a being quoted by a guy that refutes relativity. I know right red flag, lots of pros here so I thought if someone would vouch for this journal it might save me time trying to critique the papers.

The editorial board has editors from all around the world, there credentials are not mentioned. Some at uni Colorado.

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics/
What credentials are you looking for? If you click on the link "Editorial Board", you get the board member's academic or professional affiliation. If you want an individual's CV, you'll probably have to do some additional research.
 
houlahound said:
Papers from this journal a being quoted by a guy that refutes relativity. I know right red flag, lots of pros here so I thought if someone would vouch for this journal it might save me time trying to critique the papers.

The editorial board has editors from all around the world, there credentials are not mentioned. Some at uni Colorado.

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics/

There are many legitimate sources that are often used in crackpottery, simply because the person who used it either do not understand what they are citing, simply picked and chose what they wish to believe, or is utterly nuts. We continue to see anti-evolution websites citing Thermo's 2nd law (a legitimate concept) as "evidence" that evolution cannot occur.

Here's the deal. If there ARE experimental evidence that SR is wrong,, it would have been published in Nature, Science, PRL, etc... after all, where did you think the initial OPERA "faster-than-light-neutrinos" were published?

Zz.
 
I don't believe this source is legit, I am not a pro so thought I would get a more informed opinion.

The paper splits photons into their positive and negative charges.

The journal appears to my amateur mind as completely dishonest and bogus, I thought it was a Poe.
 
houlahound said:
I don't believe this source is legit, I am not a pro so thought I would get a more informed opinion.

The paper splits photons into their positive and negative charges.

The journal appears to my amateur mind as completely dishonest and bogus, I thought it was a Poe.

WHAT?

Check your link! All you gave was the main page of the journal. You didn't provide ANY citation to a specific paper! So what paper are you referring to that ".. splits photons into their positive and negative charges..."?

Zz.
 
houlahound said:
I don't believe this source is legit, I am not a pro so thought I would get a more informed opinion.

The paper splits photons into their positive and negative charges.

The journal appears to my amateur mind as completely dishonest and bogus, I thought it was a Poe.
It's not clear to which paper you are referring.

Elsevier is a reputable academic publisher with an international business. I don't believe they could stay in that business very long if their journals were no better than picking up a copy of the "World Weekly News" at the supermarket checkout.
 
What is the paper? And was it really published in that journal? Elsevier has a good reputation for scientific content.
 
The site was started because editors if a scientific site would not publish papers by anyone just because they submitted them.

Here is the why behind the journalhttp://vixra.org/why
 
  • #10
houlahound said:
Cited paper

First of all, this is not a "paper". A paper means that it is published in a scientific journal.

Secondly, you don't seem to have understood my response to your post. I said that CITED SOURCE can be legitimate, even when it is cited for the WRONG REASON by some crackpots! You should really learn how to read and analyze thing. You complain and dismiss the Elsevier journal because it was used as a source by this joker. Yet, you pay WAAAAAY too much attention and wasting time with this particular vixra garbage! What gives?

And don't you have anything better to do than trolling stuff on vixra?

This is an utter waste of time.

Zz.
 
  • #11
  • #12
The only specific paper cited in this thread is not a legitimate source. The journal itself is fine, but that doesn't mean everyone who reads a paper in it interprets it correctly. Also, the specific paper cited does not appear to have been published in that journal, although the paper's author has published another paper in that journal. Thread closed.
 
  • #13
Just to be clear, Elsevier is fine, Vixra is not.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
475
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
10K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
14K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K