"Steve Harris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Franz Heymann) wrote:

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection. The results have not been subjected to peer review

What makes you select New Scientist in particular as a publication that
should change its editorial policy?

I did not suggest that the New Scientist should change its publication
policy. It is the scientists who should complete their work and publish in
a peer reviewed journal before getting themselves published in a pop
journal.

In case you still misunderstand me, I am a New Scientist subscriber and I
find it an excellent journal for gleaning something about what happens in
fields other than my own.

Franz




Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com