SCIENTISTS, CONSIDER WHERE YOU PUBLISH posits challenging issues every author of research papers should starting thinking about. It isn't simple any more to assume that the most prestigious journals are the best venue to publish your research. So what if you have published in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal and not many people can read what you have written due to its subscription cost? How long can this continue? Could this provide some incentive for scholars to publish in open access journals? What then? It is quiet possible that articles published in open access journals might be able to shift the focus of a discipline or a field of study because of their wider availability and accessibility.
Excerpt from the above mentioned article:
For scientists, publishing a paper in a respected peer-reviewed journal marks the culmination of successful research. But some of the most prestigious and soughtafter journals are so costly to access that a growing number of academic libraries can't afford to subscribe. Before submitting your next manuscript, consider a journal's access policy alongside its prestige - and weigh the implications of publishing in such costly periodicals. Two distinct problems continue to plague scientific publishing. First, institutional journal subscription costs are skyrocketing so fast that they outstrip the ability of many libraries to pay, threatening to sever scientists from the literature. Second, the taxpaying public funds a terrific amount of research in this country, and with few exceptions, can't access any of it. These problems share a common root - paid access to the scientific literature.
Understanding our universe and a true science
In order to understand any of the above and how this information effects every aspect of your life one must have an accurate view of nature in turn understanding a true science. In order to understand anything fully and completly one must abandon all personal opions and disbelifes by having an open mind, but at the same time use a level of critism and personal observation to come to a conclusion. It is explained to us by science, that all material bodies are made or composed of matter and that matter is composed of unifying particals known as atoms. The physical material and matter itself is manifested in nature all around us, in simple everyday elements such as water, air and so on. How about mental objects in nature and our natural world to what degree does science explain our mental objects such as thought. Eveything in the universe is conposed of energy and to a greater extent vibrations, and the oscillation of particles. Present day sciences do not explain well enough, these so-called abstract models of our universe such as thought and consciousness. If eveything is in essense energy then why is it so hard to imagine our very conscious existance and thoughts are also a frequency of oscillating vibration or energy related.
When speaking about the physical human brain, our very senses are electrical signals interpreted by this complex super computer, our brain. In essence our physical experiences are the conequences of our consciousness, so is consciousness the only reality. With our reality being continuously shaped by our thoughts and conscious existance is it safe to say that no solid reality actually exist but is rather an interpratation of our own thought based consciousness. How do what we actually see, hear, touch, taste and smell shape our individual experience, these functions are internal representations of an external world. Can we trust our internal representations of the "outside" world with total absolute accuracy? Science should begin with such important questions and be able to answer questions that are relative to every single individual on every level. Consciousness should be the foundation of our sciences, because it is the steping stone of which all individuals view reality and is nessasary in understanding all scientific truth. It is by understanding our own conscioussness that we begin to understand the entire universe and start to understand true sciences as well as nature itself. Maybe sciences are not ready to take on such huge responsiblity, such as the development of intellect to reach universal truth because it is much easier to remain ignorant and stupid. Matter and mind are the two main elements in our universe, and matter is only relative because our minds define matter by our experiences.Development of the intellect via consciousness is indeed the purpose of the entire universe, to understand the self and expand our understanding. In fact what is material reailty? Could material reailty just be a test of intellectual understanding and for expanding our individual consciousness? I now understand the function of light and it's purpose in our universe, to maintain and transfer information from source to source in an on going exchange. Light has the ability to retain and transfer massive amounts of encoded information, just as explained earlier in this text. The more one understands about science the more one is pointed in the direction of the realm of consciousness to understanding the self. It seems that all triumphs and failures stem from the self and our own personal thoughts and experiences. Why is it that the majority of people do not question, not only science but everything which points to "no where"? It is by this blind acceptance that no change will ever come in the realm of science or other wise. The focus of today's sciences are mainly the pursuit of vast amounts of money and the development of weapons and other destructive materials. How can any "true sciences" be taught or learnt if mankind is pre-occupided with matters of such trival nature?
- This article is from one chapter in my book that I am working on. I have a vision of a changing science, a science in progress.
I NEED ALL THE HELP I CAN RECIEVE in communicating this information with the masses.
-If you would also like to finantially aid my Global Warming research team then feel free to contact me!
Feel free to contact me:
neocpu6456@yahoo.com