[ RadSafe ] This "radiation journal" that probably doesn't exist
bcradsafers at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 12 19:46:42 CDT 2011
Yesterday I posted the following:
"Notice - under 1.4 Editorial Boards (current) at:
Sort of interesting..."
I am surprised that almost no Radsafer reacted - because:
This "journal" (European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics) was to my knowledge never found in scientific library.
CB probably was a cofounder of the corresponding website.
The "articles" were probably only peer reviewed by the authors themselves - CB had at least about half a dozen articles there (including uranium-DNA stuff). If I recall correctly - one was coauthored with Roger Coghill - a phenomenon himself with Kirlian photography and other "unusual stuff". The sample article of the "journal" was by Roger Coghill BTW.
Three of the CB articles have been used in the ECRR report (by CB, Bertell et al.).
The website ( http://www.ebab.eu.com/ ) seems to be gone - the articles can according to my understanding not be found at scientific libraries.
CB:s CV states that he is a current editor of the "journal".
Wakeford wrote about this mess as it was in Febr. 2008:
"As a brief aside, it is of some interest that, possibly in an effort to counter the criticism that he does not submit his work to be technically assessed for suitability for publication in the peerreviewed scientific literature, Chris Busby has recently had a rash of papers ‘published’ in the ‘web-journal’, European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics (www.ebab.eu.com) —a curious
entity that was launched in 2005 and claims to publish peer-reviewed papers, but which,
after five issues of Volume 1, appears to have run out of steam after Issue 1 of Volume 2
in 2006. I shall let you be the judge of just what might be going on here by pointing out
that Busby, a member of the Editorial Board, is an author of no fewer than eight papers in
the currently existing (as of February 2008) six issues of the journal! European Biology and
Bioelectromagnetics raises another important matter that I cannot pursue here, and that is
the question of what should constitute the recognised scientific literature and how any given
journal can be inferred reasonably to be a part of this literature. This is a complex question
that goes to the heart of what the public might consider to be a genuine scientific (rather than,
say, political) publication."
My personal initiative only,
PS. Notice also ref. 13 here:
For more strange stuff - check out:
A gold mine for teachers in epidemiology (Sternglass level) - look at this for instance:
More information about the RadSafe