Talk:NeuroQuantology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Dear Editor, I am NeuroQuantology journal editor. I think that, you should be globally to the NeuroQuantology. NeuroQuantology is eighty years old journal and accepted many scientific index:

Science Citation Index
ISI Web of Science
Neuroscience Citation Index
PsycINFO
SCOPUS
EMBASE
EBSCO Publishing
DOAJ
Index Copernicus

So and, may be we have, borderline paper about secience and pseudoscience. NeuroQuantology takes a deliberately different approach to review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. NeuroQuantology will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In NeuroQuantology, the authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer': choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted.

We use peer usage versus peer review BMJ 2007; 335:451: "Traditionally, editorial review is the main alternative to peer review. A scientist editor or editorial team applies a sieve, with varying degrees of selectivity, to research submissions. Strictly, this process should not attempt to predict whether ideas and facts are "true," because truth can be established only in retrospect. Instead, editorial selection works within constraints of subject matter on the basis of factors such as potential importance and interest, clarity and appropriateness of expression, and broad criteria of scientific plausibility. Even probably untrue papers may be judged worth publishing if they contain aspects (ideas, perspectives, and data) that are potentially stimulating to the development of future science.

Dear Crusio, thanks for the clean-up. I saw that the article was self-written by Dr. Tarlaci, and looked like self-promotion. I tried to insert only verifiable content and added few references, one of which is published in Lancet Neurology and is of high impact [the text is not free however, I can provide by e-mail if needed]. The category is correctly defined as frindge science, here no harm intended by me, some articles are possibly important, but the majority are not mainstream science. As of 2010 NeuroQuantology is paid, possibly because it is covered by Thompson. I personally dislike paid journals, but the content before 2010 seems to be still open access. Danko Georgiev (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseodoscience?[edit]

It seems pretty obvious that this journal is devoted to pseudoscience. Some articles I stumbled across:

1) "Quantum Logic of the Unconscious and Schizophrenia," http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/550.

2) "It's not pseudoscience" The author aims to refute a physicist's critique of "neuroquantology". Whether the critique is a good one or not, this can give a start to the debate. "Pseudoscience and Victor Stenger’s Quantum Gods: Mistaken, Misinformed and Misleading," http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/272. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added materials from Hassani which directly comment on this journal as typical of pseudoscience publications. @Randykitty: would you please weigh in here? It appears to me that we have another Explore here. EdChem (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have shortened your text a little bit (the article is not about Hassani), but apart from that, looks fine to me. If I have time, I'll update the ranking in the lead, but I am currently traveling and don't have much time for WP. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material was removed since, but I have restored it, also making its verification more obvious. I also tagged the article for WikiProject Skepticism. I'm unsure if the wording of the first paragraph is adequate, because it presents it unambiguously as peer reviewed science, which is incorrect. —PaleoNeonate – 13:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randykitty: you appear to keep removing criticism from this article. Please see WP:PARITY. —PaleoNeonate – 18:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That criticism is A/ trivial (who cares about the affiliation of the EIC) and B/ Not sourced to reliable sources (ResearchGate and a blog). Please see WP:OR and WP:POV. Note that I did leave the "claptrap" reference, even though this comes perilously close to WP:SYNTH. The ranking info and the Norwegian rating kill this journal quite effectively, so there is no need to make this even more of a hatchet job. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm I just checked two pseudoscience-related encyclopedias without finding a mention of NeuroQuantology. I'll add a note at WP:FTN to gather more input, there may be better sources for this or a better way to put it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How can it be original research when it's a summary of a third party source? —PaleoNeonate – 18:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: also, you are the one contesting the status quo: I was not the author of that text, but have repeatedly had to reinsert or clarify it (over the years I think) as it was questionned and removed... —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is also a BLP issue, so you really need a strong justification for including text that says that the IEC is faking his affiliation. --Randykitty (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What text is that? I don't see that in the current version (or the old). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There might be debates about sourcing, but this is not WP:SYNTH/WP:OR in the least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Commenting about the competences of editorial board members without a third-party source is OR/SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is a source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blog. Do we have any evidence that this is a reliable source? We have no article on its author, Sadri Hassani. --Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is where WP:PARITY may be relevant. What BLP issues? The article is about a journal. —PaleoNeonate – 19:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that somebody (a living person) is being untruthful about something, that is a BLP issue, no matter what the article itself is about. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hassani questions credentials that's true. I would have no problem to attribute it as his opinion. —PaleoNeonate – 19:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hassani is a professor emeritus of physics, and wrote a bunch of articles on pseudoscience in Physics Today and elsewhere, so he's self-published expert sources, at least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Skeptical Inquirer, which is a pretty reliable source. He's clearly published on the issue of fringe science in reliable sources. --tronvillain (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you asked in the edit summary, WP:SYNTH does not apply because what was in the article is an accurate summary of what was in the source. There was no one combining material "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", as far as I can tell. Oh wait, the link to the current advisory and editorial board contains names not in the source, so it would be synthesis to combine the two with the implication that the article from 2015 applies to the current advisory board. Perhaps something like "in 2015." --tronvillain (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trash[edit]

In support of my recent reversion in which I labelled this journal as "trash" (which it is), the 2016 Journal Citation Reports places it 249th out of 259 journals in the field of neuroscience. It's impact factor (0.586) is laughable. Essential Science Indicators ranks it as 331st out of 345 journals in the field of "neuroscience and behavior". The editorial board looks as dubious as fwck, but all we have is one blog post to that effect. Personally, I am torn between deleting this article because this is such a patently sh!t journal and wanting to keep it as a necessary antidote to a lot of paid-for cr@p on the internet that says it's unlocking the mysteries of the universe. Thoughts? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is trash, yes, but it's notable trash. So it belong on Wikipedia, with sourcing explaining it's trash. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this journal even exist?[edit]

None of the external links work. Is this journal still in existence? Polymath uk (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The journal does not exist in the colloquial meaning of the word "exist" because previously published articles cannot be downloaded from the online website, and also the journal online archive is dysfunctional, namely, it lists some "journal issues" but then when you try to open those issues you go to do dysfunctional page. The journal is complete trash but some Wikipedians protect the Wikipedia entry as if it is an amazing treasure. If someone decides to propose this article for deletion, I would gladly vote for speedy deletion. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The links work for me and I tried downloading of a recent (2021) article and that was no problem either. The journal clearly is crap, and our article clearly says so in the lead. The journal is notable: it is listed in Scopus (meeting WP:NJournals) and there's at least one independent reference. It also looks like that at some point it was included in the Science Citation Index (I don't have time to verify that right now, it's not currently indexed by Clarivate). You can propose this for deletion again (just see you already did so last year), but that will certainly be a waste of valuable editor time. Speedy deletion is absolutely out of the question. That the journal is crap is not a reaason for deletion. See it this way: our article clearly warns readers and potential authors to steer away from this fringe journal. --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is GONE as of 1 February 2022. You cannot download a single article from somewhere and say that the journal exists. Please due a diligent work that goes outside your personal bias to keep the journal in Wikipedia. As of today none of the Journal links works, therefore I have marked them as Dead Links.

EleOk6e3ih (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • What can I say? When I tried the links on Jan 26, they worked. I didn't download an article "from somewhere", but from the journal's website. Just before you had trouble getting the website. Today I cannot access it either. This looks to me like it could be a transient error, it's premature to declare this gone. In any case, the journal had an impact factor in 2017 (meaning that it was in the Science Citation Index Expanded, and is in Scopus, meaning that it is notable, so even if it turns out to be gone for good, the article will remain as notability is not temporary. As a final note, I'd appreciate if you could assume good faith instead of accusing me of bias. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I assume good faith because you had the honesty to confirm that the journal is gone as of today. Also, if you follow the domain http://www.neuroquantology.com/ and press Ctrl + U you can find the source of the page. I will post the information for your convenience, but of course you can also check for yourself.

"name": "ALTOBET", "alternateName": "ALTOBET", "url": "https://www.neuroquantology.com", "logo": "https://i.ibb.co/8j1mMhW/judi-online-terpercaya.png", "description": "Situs judi online terpercaya dan terlengkap menyediakan slot online, casino online, judi bola sbobet, togel online. Daftar Agen judi deposit via pulsa, dana, gopay & ovo", "address": { "@type": "PostalAddress", "streetAddress": "Jl. Garden House No.6A - 7A PIK Kamal Muara, Penjaringan", "postOfficeBoxNumber": "14440", "addressLocality": "Indonesia", "addressRegion": "Jakarta Utara", "postalCode": "14440", "addressCountry": "Indonesia" }, "contactPoint": { "@type": "ContactPoint", "telephone": "+6281218854894", "contactType": "customer service", "areaServed": "ID", "availableLanguage": "Indonesian" }, "sameAs": [ "https://twitter.com/@Altobet", "https://www.instagram.com/Altobet"

In essence, it seems that the owner of the domain is online casino from Indonesia. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Stop removing the dead-link tags[edit]

I would like to point out that the purpose of the dead-link tags is EXACTLY to disrupt the formatting of the links! The purpose is that you as human editor are required to insert new correct link to online journal.

Where is the link to the Online Journal?
Where is the link to the Online Archive?

If your answer is "I do not know" then stop deleting the dead-link tags and kindly consider reverting your own edits. It is your turn to assume good faith edits from me. Potentially, you can wait until the old links "miraculously" start working and only then, if this ever happens, delete the dead-link tags. Thank you. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many days should the journal domain and online archive be absent to decide to remove the dead links ? The journal does no longer exist, but you gang on me to keep the Wikipedia page "beautiful". Just wonderful! EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The solution here is to put an archived version of the websites. This can take 0 days if you want. E.g. [1]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the journal is back (today is February 4, 2022). I hope that they do not delete it again. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if this happen again, don't rush to conclusions (about the journal and about editors who tell you to use archived links). --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2015 claim is dubious[edit]

I think that the 2015 claim based on web blog is no longer valid. The Editor-in-Chief has become Full Professor in Neurology since 2018 at Üsküdar University. It is also evident from the provided profile link that The Editor-in-Chief has been Associate Professor in Neurology since 2011, therefore the claim has been false in 2015 too. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is also false with regard to current lack of quantum physicists in the Editorial Board. Michael B. Mensky is Professor in Quantum Phycs. He has worked on quantum field theory and quantum gravity (especially on application of group-theoretical methods in this field), quantum theory of measurements and foundations of quantum physics. He has introduced the concepts of path group (with applications in gauge theory and gravity), and restricted path integral (applied for continuous quantum measurements), as stated on his profile in Research Gate. Overall, I propose that someone deletes the 2015 remark completely. I do not want to do that because I do not want to be charged with vandalism by admins. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the list of board members. We do not list board members for any decent journal, so why should we do this for this crap journal? We only mention board members if there are independent reliable sources discussing their impact on the journal or vice versa. As for the editor being a neurologist or not, we follow sources, so if there's a source that contradicts the current sourced statement in the article, then that can be added, but original research is not acceptable. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source talks about the Advisory and Editorial board as listed by the journal. That list is here. And indeed, if you look at the people listed under Advisory and Editorial board, none of them have a background in neurology or quantum physics. That's separate from the EiC's credentials. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Headbomb - what you wrote is frankly RIDICULOUS! I visited your link and under "Advisory and Editorial Board" is CLEARLY WRITTEN: "Michael B. Mensky, P. N. Lebedev Physics Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation". Michael B. Mensky is a famous Russian physicist working in quantum physics, quantum foundations, quantum field theory and quantum gravity. Put your glasses ON and do not tell me that I am doing original research. If you do not know WHO Michael B. Mensky is, go and read some quantum physics articles on ResearchGate: Michael B. Mensky EleOk6e3ih (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, put you your glasses on and read what the source actually wrote. "The Advisory and Editorial Board lists individuals... who cannot be found in the departments/schools to which they are claimed to belong: Alfredo Pereira, Burak Erdeniz, Attila Grandpierre, Donald Mender, Michael B. Mensky, Subhash Kak;". The source goes to verify that Mensky was in the department he claimed to be in [2] and verification failed. (See also the full directory, also not listing Mensky ) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, we shall play the game who is dumber, right? I stated in clear English language that the sentence "As of 2015, neither the editorial board nor the advisory board contain scientists working in the fields of quantum physics or neurology" is FALSE. PERIOD.
With regard to what the original source says, I have no idea and DO NOT CARE! What you quote about who can be found in what DEPARTMENT has no whasoever bearing on "scientists working in the fields of quantum physics or neurology". Checkmate! Now shut up or continue playing the who is dumber game. I will not reply to you anymore. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that our civility policies and good faith discussion policies are not optional. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To Randykitty - you did not read the discussion in the template Dubious, did you? EleOk6e3ih (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sample publications by Michael B. Mensky on quantum physics in academic journals:

EleOk6e3ih (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop quoting third party sources to insert LIES in Wikipedia[edit]

A LIE written in a BLOG remains a LIE. The only difference is that it is now a "third-party sourced LIE". Why you admins quote various rules as you like and ignore common sense? Does it feel good to gang on someone? EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VNT, and also WP:CALM. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NeuroQuantology&oldid=1195286327"