This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Is it worth putting in some discussion of the "From the editor" piece on the website? "There are controversies, differences of opinion, and sometimes even religious feelings which come into play. These should be discussed openly." and "Acceptation of a paper may not necessarily mean that all referees agree with everything." are somewhat unusual positions for the editor of a journal to take! Djr32 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is this unusual? The journal's scope is to discuss at length issues of the foundations of physics, these can become philosophical at times. Additionally, it is implicit in most peer-reviewed journal policies that publication does not imply solely positive reviews. Ofter an editor will act as the tiebreaker when a negative and positive review are received. Hence, saying acceptance of a paper does not mean that all reviewers agree is in fact a very plain statement applicable to any journal. It would appear 't Hooft is just emphasizing the openness of his journal to discussions. Evilmathninja (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned up the controversial claims section the other day so that the letter published by the editor corresponded to the papers submited to the journal. If other controversial claims need to be listed, they need to be cited. We can't just list a bunch of papers that have been submitted with controversial topics and then make a claim that the journal wishes it didn't do it. Akuvar (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)