Should a system be created for selecting published works?

Dear colleagues,

In September 2024, Gurcharn Singh Sandhu proposed to create a System for evaluating published works on ResearhGate (RG) https://tinyurl.com/2whb44sa . Reviewers should evaluate the work with a number of points out of 10. Then the work is assigned an average score for all reviews.

During the discussion, it became clear to me that good works should be selected from the many published works. This idea was published [1]. Anyone interested can read it.

The selection of published works will be carried out by RG members. Therefore, I have a question for them: “Should a system be created for selecting published works?”

It is interesting to note that the article [1] was reviewed by an outstanding scientist from Hong Kong, Professor Vladimir Chigrinov. He is an expert in liquid crystals, the author of two hundred works, fifty patents, has more than 18,000 references to his works, and his Hirsch index is 60.

As I have already informed you, this article proposes to select published works not by statistical indicators, but by their content.

The selection work will be carried out by RG members. Among them there are many highly qualified researchers. Therefore, they will be able to study the work and formulate what new knowledge about the world was obtained in it. Thus, the useful essence of the work will be presented in the recommendations of the nominators, in the review and in the comments on the review.

Now, imagine that such a selection will be made in all areas of science. As a result, a base of real knowledge about the world will be formed. All researchers will strive for their research to provide real knowledge about the world. None of them will be interested in basing their results on hypotheses, on questionable data, or using unreliable constructions of other researchers in their work, since all the shortcomings of these studies will be revealed.

And what do we have now? There is Mainstream science, which, based on hypotheses, creates fictitious ideas about the world. They are called paradigms. Mainstream journals publish only conventional articles. That is, those that correspond to these paradigms. These publications are used to rank scientists and science, and its funding.

Unconventional work is not supported by government funding. Therefore, all world science is fixated on the distorted understanding of the world created by Mainstream science.

I will quote Paolo Viaggi’s words to my article “Disadvantages of Science and Overcoming Them”:

“Dear Joseph,

I agree with what you say, but I would like to add a very important aspect of research that is too often overlooked: the deontology of researchers. As an independent researcher who decided to transfer his professional experience to the field of Quaternary climatology with an innovative approach outside of canonical and therefore 'uncomfortable' thinking, I can say without a doubt that Science without deontology cannot improve. In fact, the greatest obstacle to scientific progress comes from the scientific community itself, which is self-conservative. Innovative works, even more so if 'non-academic', are boycotted both at the peer-review stage and after publication by avoiding citation. In this way, innovative works are withdrawn from healthy scientific scrutiny, thus hindering scientific progress. The first problem is the peer review process, which as it is currently managed is unable to capture the true value of a scientific contribution mainly because there is no control over the ethical behaviour of reviewers. After publication, the most innovative papers meet two fates: boycotts that lead to the paper being read but without citations, or aggressive comments in response to the paper.

In essence, there can be no scientific progress without the ethics of researchers”.

I can say that Paolo conveyed my entire 57-year path in science with his words. My two hundred articles were rejected hundreds of times by mainstream journals. Therefore, the false ideas I discovered, such as the Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang, Black Holes, gravitational waves, etc., are still preserved in mainstream science. And the truths I discovered, such as real electromagnetic forces, the mechanisms of formation of atmospheric vortices, the real causes of long-term climate fluctuations, etc., are unknown to mainstream scientists. I think that many of the RG members can also relate Paolo's words to themselves.

The proposed selection system allows us to restore this path of Mainstream science that is harmful to Humanity. Now, RG members need to think about what rules should be for nominators of good works. I mentioned three rules for a reviewer. Are they enough? What rules should be used when discussing a review? In order for the system to start functioning, it is necessary to formulate these rules in a clear and compact form. With further experience of its operation, these rules will be improved.

The proposed system can function only with the participation of all RG members. Therefore, each of us must be imbued with the fact that the knowledge of mankind can only be obtained by honest researchers who will not allow lies, deception and self-deception in their research. Many of the RG members are representatives of Mainstream science, so they now act according to its rules in their research. But none of them would like researchers in other fields of science to provide them with false ideas about the world.

Let us recall the words of Krishna: “No matter what I do, no matter how I act, no one will condemn me in all three worlds. But if I act unrighteously, then others will act unrighteously!”. All RG members must be guided by these words, and then the System of selection of published works will contribute to the successful development of mankind!

References

1. Smulsky, J.J. (2025) Selecting of published works. Journal of Physics & Optics Sciences, 7(2): 1-3. DOI: doi.org/10.47363/JPSOS/2025(7)294.

Sincerely yours Prof. Joseph J. Smulsky

Institute of Earth's Cryosphere, Tyum SC of SB RAS, Federal Research Center

Malygina Str. 86,

625026, Tyumen, Russia.

Tel. +7-3452-68-87-14, E-mail: [email protected];

https://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/smul1/;

http://wgalactica.ru/smul1/.

Popular papers in Russian http://samlib.ru/s/smulxskij_i_i/;

Channel “How the World Works”:

https://t.me/Kak_ustroen;

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMQFcybFpFIWhtDnUQ5zg9g.