Giulio Fanti writes:
I pray all the bloggers to read carefully the contents of the papers published I this special issue. If there will be something debatable, each one is invited to write a letter to the Editor of the Journal with his comments. The Editor will therefore publish a proper answer from the authors with those comments. I excuse me from now, but I’ll have not the time to read your comments and to answer to them.
It is obvious that this Special Issue can irritate someone against the Shroud authenticity because a large number of scientific facts in favor of its authenticity and of Jesus Christ Resurrection are here presented and justified.
But I ask these bloggers, why it does not exist a similar Special Issue presenting scientific facts against the authenticity of the Shroud? I think because there aren’t! Before to make some comment or worst some accusation, it is better if the blogger better inquire the real facts.
For example what appeared in the blog: "You are aware that Academic Journals is a vanity publication. Authors pay $550.00 to have papers published. Peer review is suspect." is a free and wrong accusation.
-1. "Vanity publication" must be demonstrated also because there are many other respectable scientific journals that want a fee to publish papers. In the present case the fees are justified by the fact that the access to the papers is free.
-2. Probably also due to the importance of the argument, the authors did not pay the $550.00 wrongly declared.
-3. More bad and wrong accusation is the suspect relative to peer review procedure. I leaded this procedure (a part from my paper that was sent to a colleague). I asked for the review of at least two referees coming from university professors and in some cases of researchers of famous institutes. After this procedure, 7 papers over 18 have been rejected.
Well, I am waiting for your Letters to the Editor with your comments.
The fact of the matter is that we have some new papers to discuss and evaluate. Where or how they were published isn’t particularly important. I don’t know how many people are going to write to the editor seeking an answer from the authors. Maybe that will happen. If so, that would be great. I think the greater value is open and free discussion here or elsewhere in the blogosphere. That is certain to happen. And as in the past various authors participate with us.
Giulio’s writes: “It is obvious that this Special Issue can irritate someone against the Shroud authenticity.” I don’t think that is the issue, at all. What I’m sensing is concern from those who believe the shroud is real and/or are committed to objectivity that the venue for these articles is weak or even a bit suspect.
Gabriel puts it this way:
Dan, the problem here is not whether we are in favour of an open access system for science. The problem here is that this journal does not belong to the JCR, unlike the papers by Adler, Pellicori and a long etc and as a result, peer-review is not guaranteed at all. That said, we can discuss about the contents- after all we do it all the time with anything published on the Shroud, don’t we?- but please, don’t call it science YET. (corrected)
Let the discussions begin. Maybe we could start with Giulio’s editorial with this provocative tidbit:
. . . will be the Science able to explain in the next future the “Mystery”? “Mystery of Cross” because the Science should be able to explain all the bloodstains visible on the TS and to correlate them to a particular torture. “Mystery of Light” because the Science should also be able to explain in which way the very superficial body image formed on the TS, perhaps, as some scientist suppose (Jackson, 1998; Fanti, 2010; Baldacchini et al., 2008), making reference to a kind of radiation coming from a dead body.
Are you listening Yannick? Colin? Bloodstains? Radiation?