I can believe reputation and connections or other relationships have a bearing on whether or not a paper gets sent for peer review. And I don't know how the JAES does it, maybe someone can tell us some of the details. I'd hope once sent for review the reputation wouldn't be a part of it.
Yes, a nice example again of the difference between science and pseudoscience:
There is a whole topic about it:
www.audiosciencereview.com
He's really racking up his frequent scammer miles here at ASR, evidently...There is a whole topic about it:
High End Audio and the Domain of Time
I do not understand much of this but it would be interesting to hear what you think about what being talked about in this video.
If that were true, it would be a horrible insult to both his intelligence and scientific abilities.
In academia and research its amazing how myopic people can potentially get. A random example was when I was an undergrad taking mechanical engineering courses, I had a tenured professor publicly call me an "idiot" after an exam for pointing out that his method of calculating the drag coeffect of a typical passenger car was potentially in error as the "correct" answer on the exam was a Cd of 0.8 rather than the more typical Cd of 0.35. I think even Hummers are more aerodynamic than that. And he concluded that such a low drag coefficient for cars was completely absurd! And by his model (and for certain types of open-wheel cars) the number it gave was correct. A classic case of circular logic. But, at no point did he decide to do some simple research to see what some ballpark values were before formulating it and making it an exam question in a mechanical engineering course that people have to answer. It may seem trivial, but when 10% of your final course grade depends on having to force yourself to be wrong or face a public flogging for your "insolence", its not. And that was a common theme for college when I was there. The lack of any practical grounding in reality much of the time was one thing I did not like. And this carried on when I went to work at a research center. Smart people sometimes doing and saying dumb things. It does happen.
But, I do wish he would actually have them legitimately peer reviewed. I'm sure he is a good astrophysicist, but it does call into question his methodologies if he doesn't ever consider getting timely feedback before firing off the next paper to maintain relevance. If he does it knowingly then I would not even take his work in his field of expertise seriously without doing my own research first. It just shows very poor ethics.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."In academia and research its amazing how myopic people can potentially get. A random example was when I was an undergrad taking mechanical engineering courses, I had a tenured professor publicly call me an "idiot" after an exam for pointing out that his method of calculating the drag coeffect of a typical passenger car was potentially in error as the "correct" answer on the exam was a Cd of 0.8 rather than the more typical Cd of 0.35. I think even Hummers are more aerodynamic than that. And he concluded that such a low drag coefficient for cars was completely absurd! And by his model (and for certain types of open-wheel cars) the number it gave was correct. A classic case of circular logic. But, at no point did he decide to do some simple research to see what some ballpark values were before formulating it and making it an exam question in a mechanical engineering course that people have to answer. It may seem trivial, but when 10% of your final course grade depends on having to force yourself to be wrong or face a public flogging for your "insolence", its not. And that was a common theme for college when I was there. The lack of any practical grounding in reality much of the time was one thing I did not like. And this carried on when I went to work at a research center. Smart people sometimes doing and saying dumb things. It does happen.
In all honesty its easy to do really stupid things when you don't have all the information. In your frame of reference its "correct", but in absolute terms its not. The oft cliché Dunning-Kruger effect. It seems silly, but I have done the exact same thing myself at times. He could have ulterior motives or be dishonest, but we should also not discount the ability to deceive ourselves if we try hard enough
If this is true you wonder about the quality of the peer reviewers invited by the AES: how can a publication like this pass the scrutiny of real experts?
A problem for interested 'lay' folk is that serious research papers are often difficult to obtain for casual review. AES charges 33 dollars for a copy, or one hundred and twenty five dollars a year, allowing (I guess) unlimited access. So unless you can find a pirated copy on line somewhere (not advised for legal reasons), those at the hobbyist level (who do not have access via an institutional account) will never be able to check anything out. A decent university library should have copies of the Journal, especially one with an EE program, so that could be an option.
If the ears were the holy spirit of audiophilia I would expect more threads like this https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...0031070/&q=earwax&c[title_only]=1&o=relevance
In a just world, Alexandra Elbakyan would have a Nobel Prize.
Information wants to be free and open. Stallman argues that. Some disagree about it, for sure. Maybe sites that closely control information create added value for authors, and the discipline in general. Meetings and get-togethers. Lunch and learn sessions and all that. A lifetime award. I guess they would argue that.
My feeling is that, since the great majority of published research is funded by money taken from the citizenry at large, we have a right to see the results. Kunchur is paid from tax dollars and using our involuntarily extracted tax money to build a personally profitable enterprise and fund his hobby. So at the very least, what he does with it should be subject to public scrutiny.
Right out of the gate Kunchur has chosen 3 cables to measure based on cost but fails to identify them. It doesn’t take a scientist to at least be a little suspicious of his conclusions based on that alone. And it just gets worse from there.
