Talk:NeuroQuantology
Dear Editor, I am NeuroQuantology journal editor. I think that, you sould be globally to the NeuroQuantology. NeuroQuantology is eighty years old journal and accepted many scientific index. NeuroQuantology Journal Accepted (January, 2008)
- 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 papers abot 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.