Scope of Scientific Journals
Journals in the Earth and space sciences have traditionally been limited to scientific theory, observations, and conclusions. Doron Nef tested this view by approaching 13 journals about the publication of a nontraditional article and described the response in Eos. He said, “as natural scientists, our job should be to explain the nature, not only as far as it advances the natural sciences but also as far as it advances philosophy, religion, and other branches of the social sciences.” Others have suggested that journal articles should be allowed to comment on public policy issues. This online discussion is your opportunity to opine on the extent to which scientific journals should extend their traditional scopes - or not.
As published in Eos: 26 September 2006 | 17 October 2006
December 27th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
I would generally be in favor of expanding the scope of scientific journals to include articles that explore issues beyond purely technical ones. I think it is highly relevant in today’s world to have papers that prod us to think about the significance of science in human affairs, such as public policy, values, ethics, philosophy, spirituality, etc.
I would think, however, that such expansion should be approached very very carefully. These can be loaded and sensitive issues, and they should be treated in as objective a manner as any technical paper. It would be counterproductive to open a traditionally technical journal to opinion, propaganda, or ranting like so many of the Internet blogs or even to articles that push an agenda disguised as a scientific study. In fact, it is the latter that I would fear the most, as opinion, propaganda, and ranting can easily be filtered out; cleverly disguised agendas cannot.
I have read Professor Nof’s Eos Forum article and the response by David Book as well as read through the paper that Nof and colleagues published concerning a possible physical explanation of how Jesus might have appeared to walk on water. While the paper is a sophisticated treatment of lake dynamics, which is an interesting scientific exercise, it does leave me wondering about the motivation for this study. Recognizing the potential sensitivity of such an attempt, would it really hinder the progress of the geosciences (as Nof suggests in the first paragraph of his Eos article) not blatantly to try to dispel a story that is held dear by many Christians (even if we think that belief in miracles is silly or at least unnecessary for one’s faith)? Perhaps it would be wiser and more respectful for scientists not to hit such religious beliefs head-on but rather to approach things in a more gentle and sensitive manner, nudging people along the way to better understandings of our physical world and how to integrate this with faith. It seems counterproductive to me for scientists to butt heads with religious people, but rather we should be working together for mutual goals of peace and the enhancement of our human and physical world (as I have suggested in my own Eos Forum article).
I can see where some would fear that we would be opening Pandora’s Box by expanding the scope of journals to include philosophy, religion, etc., and we would be better off by not going there at all. However, I am always interested in reading articles that take a step back from the arcane world of pure science and consider the social relevance of this science. Scientists can make highly significant contributions to the betterment of our world, and I, for one, would like to encourage dialog on the role of science in society.
David Garen
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Portland, Oregon
January 11th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
My study of the possibility of pumping cold water from 1000 m depth and spreading it on the ocean surface to combat global warming and hurricanes has led me into technical subjects like ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) and offshore technology, as well as oceanography, ocean-atmosphere interaction, marine biology, fisheries and artificial reefs. My AGU membership has been most valuable and the published papers have been of high quality. Authors generally stay within their respective areas of competence in order to meet publication standards and enhance their professional reputations.
However, mankind is confronted with serious problems in the form of global warming, depleted resources, and pollution. We might make more progress toward solutions if interdisciplinary ideas like mine could be published in EOS to benefit from the vast store of knowledge and abilities of the readers. We would need a more relaxed atmosphere in which unconventional and incompletely-developed ideas can be presented, and replies can be elicited without endangering the reputations of the participants. Some ideas might have flaws, which can be pointed out by respondents, and possible solutions proposed by other respondents. Professional standards can be maintained by a cadre of referees who are themselves candidates for sainthood: possessing wisdom, knowledge, tolerance, discipline, tact, and the ability to help contributors to meet reasonable standards of clarity and logic.
Richard LaRosa
sealevelcontrol.com
February 27th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Science, as characterized by the AGU and other journals, is so dogmatic that any hypothesis different from the currently accepted view is summarily dismissed. This is often executed by the editors, acting as gatekeepers for their esteemed academic contributors. The next barrier against new ideas is to demand ‘credentials’ and then delay, often by demanding mathematical models to bolster the hypothesis.
This is particularly true of planetary and Earth scientists, whose unquestioning acceptance of old ideas and all their mathematical models have resulted in the complete misunderstanding of every planet in the solar system. NASA’s data is all good, but its interpretation is flawed to an unimaginable degree because no competing interpretations are published.
I have repeatedly submitted papers to rectify this situation over the last decade only to be rejected by the ‘priests’ of the current dogma. These papers have been available on my website for years, but are unknown because of your tunnel vision. These scientists are like a herd of sheep, following the gradualism of the geologists who became the first planetary scientists and the likes of Carl Sagan.
You have done a great disservice to science, and I have no doubt will continue to do so. I am completely willing to allow my ideas to compete because I know they are correct. How much longer will all these intelligent scientists waste their time and the resources of our country jousting with windmills. AGU and the other ’scientific’ journals are responsible for this waste.
John Ackerman
firmament-chaos.com