Hostile Reviews of my Articles and Books
Many times reviews are equivalent to "ballet box stuffing" in that they are not written as an actual appraisal of an article's or books's worth. Groups that do not want you to read an article or book for philosophic reasons not related to the article's or book's worth have, in the past, flooded the world with negative reviews not actually related to the contents of the article or book. Some reviews are based entirely upon the lack of appropriate experience with scientific discourse or ones refusal to learn newly discovered scientific methods. Even individuals with the appropriate training will dismiss an article's or book's contents if they contradict their presuppositions. Sometimes many "flowery" reviews are also designed to present an overly favorable view of an article's or book's contents.
I summarize some of the categories into which the hostile reviews of my articles and books fall.
(1) "Ballet box stuffing" - flooding the world with unsubstantiated hostile reviews to persuade individuals not to investigating my findings.
(2) Reviewers attack my philosophic beliefs or those of my associates although such beliefs are not related to the stated results.
(3) Reviewers closely associate me with individuals who have made demonstrable error in their articles or books.
(4) Reviewers do not have the requisite knowledge as contained in the references or on this web site. The reviews are based entirely upon the lack of appropriate experience with scientific discourse or the refusal to learn newly discovered scientific methods. Hence, a reviewer's comprehension is limited.
(5) Reviewers have not considered the audience for whom the article or book is written.
(6) Reviewers have personal firmly-held belief-systems portions of which are contradicted by my results. This, of course, also limits a reviewer's comprehension. Mostly their goal is NOT to present constructive reviews but it is intended to eliminate all research that differs from their approach and interpretations.
(7) Reviewers seem to skip portions of an article or book where their criticisms are countered.
(8) Reviewers add hypotheses to my arguments that were neither stated nor implied by me.
(9) A basic method within physical science is the refining and improving of theories, data and the like over time. The Internet and certain archives has allowed this process to continue via "revisions" of the presented articles and books. Reviewers neglect these revisions, considering only incomplete work.
(10) Reviewers may use the unacceptable "authority" method. This means that you should accept their hostile reviews although such reviews are merely based upon their claimed scientific authority and, in the area they are reviewing, I am usually the world authority.
At least for these ten reasons, I have decided NOT to discuss any hostile reviews of my articles or books. It would take too much time away from my research in this area. I leave it to the common sense of the reader to determine whether there are any merits to such hostile reviews.