It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Suppression in the Science Community

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


That doesn't apply to everyone.




posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Yes, I know the arXiv, papers are often submitted to it as pre-prints, ie a place to put papers before they are officially published in a journal. I know the arXiv very well.


I am glad you can read and do basic research.


I looked over their website and yes they do have an endorsement system, [where] if you are not from an academic institution you are asked to get an endorsement from a member. I agree that it is a little weird.


I don't think it is strange at all. There has to be accountability and if no one is willing to back up an idea. I don't see why they should accept every paper. One way arxiv filters is based on organization. Presumably if you are hired to lecture at a university you aren't completely nuts.


If said papers are good and valid the author should just get an endorsement, if he has scientific validity he should be able to convince someone to endorse him.


Arxiv is a preprint database. They don't have the time or resources to peer-review. That is left to industry journals. All arxiv wants is to make sure that the paper isn't complete malarkey.

Since most researchers typically have colleagues from other universities. The arxiv maintainers rightly assume the author's peers would not want to tarnish their reputation by sponsoring nonsense.

Which isn't to say nonsense doesn't get published.

web.mit.edu...

This is what LaViolette is complaining about. He has other Ph.D.'s willing to endorse him, but his paper was still rejected.

Arxiv establishes legitimacy based on a network of trust. Max Tegmark can publish his mathematical universe hypothesis not because it is good empirical research (which isn't to say I disagree with Max), but rather because he teaches at MIT and he is good friends with legend John Wheeler.

Scientists are humans.

dresdencodak.com...

We come to stupid conclusions all the time.
edit on 2014-2-12 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I can't say all ofcourse , but I have been an engineer for over 15 years and throughout my career I have never worked for a private entity that didn't want me to sign some type of confidentiality agreement and some even had me give away my patenting rights for any technology I developed while employed under them. Most are active for 1 - 2 years after employment but DOD type work has much longer expiration date.

I doubt you will find any scientist or engineers working on advance technology, without having to sign some type of confidentiality agreement. Although, under Academia this may be different?
edit on 41228America/ChicagoWed, 12 Feb 2014 14:41:03 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Xtraeme


We come to stupid conclusions all the time.


Case in point: Paul LaViolette.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

GetHyped

Xtraeme


We come to stupid conclusions all the time.


Case in point: Paul LaViolette.


In my best Doge voice, "such science." I lol'ed. =)
edit on 2014-2-12 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Mary Rose
I hope that scientists and the general public can have access to all scientific publications. We don't need gatekeepers. Quality control will sort itself out.


The important thing is for society worldwide to wise up to the excuses that are used and the fallacies of reason that are utilized to pull the wool over our eyes and keep those in control in control.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   
The Gatekeeper = Military Industrial Complex

Forget about patents that are classified... those are nothing. It's the inventions and discoveries that you are not even allowed to patent because they are considered "military technology" that are important. You simply can't patent them.

Anyway, here is an article about the Pentagon actively watching for "disruptive technology"...

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   

WeAre0ne
You simply can't patent them.


That's not true, actually. You CAN patent them, but if SLAG thinks it should be held for review it'll be delayed while they investigate it, and in the end it might be gagged. If that happens, what path that goes down depends on the patent filer. If you're a godless commie, you get a different deal than if you're ME.

At any rate, you end up having to sign a more or less restrictive NDA and your patent can only be licensed to someone on an approved list, if anyone on the list wants it. But it doesn't "go away" or get stolen and given to the MIC.

Getting slagged doesn't mean your patent isn't patentable. Quite the opposite. It's not on the searchable patent list, you don't get a regular patent number and it ends up something very like TS, if it's not actually TS'd eventually. And you get your very own personal NDA, with a presentation that's somewhat like being read onto a project.

From an old thread...
edit on 13-2-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Xtraeme

Yes, I know the arXiv, papers are often submitted to it as pre-prints, ie a place to put papers before they are officially published in a journal. I know the arXiv very well.


I am glad you can read and do basic research.


Wow, arnt we Mr/Mrs/Dr sarcastic. I do a little more than basic research.

Other than that rather arrogant part, everything in your post I agree with, I think it should be somewhat more open, but totally agree.

Mary Rose... do you honestly think scientists control anything?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join