Joe Marino writes:
Radiocarbon is a peer-reviewed journal but Jull is indeed the editor, so if there was peer-review, one has to wonder how rigorous it would have been. This is very similar to the late Dr. Walter McCrone’s peer-reviewed journal “The Microscope.” He published one or two Shroud articles in there, but that was literally his own journal, so once again, one has to wonder about the rigor of any article written by a principal of the journal. The circumstances of Jull’s article, much like the Arizona samples, will likely remain murky. (I was not even tempted to say “will likely remain shrouded in mystery.)
This is in reference to the posting, Mark Oxley’s Paper is a Must Read
It isn’t the first time that an Editor is co-author of a paper submitted to its own journal. And usually the (formal) problem is easily solved by a blind review procedure.
As an example, I faced a similar spot when I submitted two papers for publication in the Proceeding volume of IWSAI (International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos images). I was co-author of two papers and at the same time editor of the Proceedings and responsible for the choice of the Referees.
I solved this problem asking to a colleague to manage the review procedure: select the Referees, receive from each Referee the anonymous review, and send me the same reviews. She received my reply and the corrected paper and she sent it to the Referees for the final response.
In summary, there are simple rules to avoid a conflict of interest. It is likely Jull followed the same method.
I understand your point and it is valid. I worry though that I cannot find a shred of that peer review online. I’m only a science student at the moment and I’ll keep looking harder. I find it somewhat dubious though that the information wasn’t made generally available. I think that something like this needs to be tested by some non-christians to gain any more credibility or that peer review has to become supremely transparent to the entire scientific community in order to reproduce the findings. They aren’t interested in shredding the myth though; it makes more money as a mystery.
Comments are closed.