 
Science Suppression by the American Astronomical Society |
Excerpt from the book Maverick’s Earth and Universe by J. Marvin Herndon (click here)
One of the great mysteries of our time concerns the nature of non-luminous, dark matter in the Universe. There are a number of ideas about what dark matter might be, but no one knows with any certainty. It is truly a great mystery. Recently, there have been some indications that astronomers might be on the verge of recognizing a galactic-size accumulation of dark matter. In 1994, I published a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London on the possible nature of dark matter, a paper that has been systematically ignored by the astrophysical community (click here for pdf). In April, 2006, I submitted a short paper to Astrophysical Journal Letters, entitled "Thermonuclear Ignition of Dark Galaxies", which stemmed from that 1994 paper (click here for pdf). Upon submission I was asked to complete a copyright transfer form, assigning the copyright to the American Astronomical Society, the sponsor of that journal.
The way scientific publication generally works is that the author is required to assign copyright. If the paper is published, the author is required to pay a certain amount per page "page charges". Usually, these charges are paid from grants and contracts. Then later, if someone wants an electronic copy of the paper, that person must pay the copyright holder for it. There is increasing resentment toward this system because, since most of the underlying work is usually paid for by taxpayers, and the publication "page charges" are usually paid for by taxpayers, many believe that it is wrong and unfair to have to pay again for a copy of work which was conducted and published at taxpayer expense. Assignment of copyright is the first step before a paper will be considered for publication.
On May 8, 2006, I received notification that publication was being denied. The Editor of Astrophysical Journal Letters, in rejecting the manuscript, wrote, "I am sorry, but this reviewer (who is one of the world’s leading workers in this field) does not believe your ideas are tenable. I have considered the matter and find that I am in agreement with the reviewer." A copy of the very few words by the secret reviewer stated, "The proposed theory of Population III dark stars is at odds with decades of research."
So what? Virtually all of the revolutions in science begin being at odds with decades of research. Being at odds with decades of research is no basis for rejection. Indeed, challenging decades of research is what good science is all about. The Editor’s rejection was made without a sound scientific basis and constitutes an action in my view that is no less than censorship. The belief expressed by the reviewer and Editor that my ideas "are not tenable" has absolutely no supporting basis in fact. In science, all statements should be based upon a logical appeal to facts. And, at present no one knows precisely the nature of dark matter in the Universe.
So, I responded to the Editor, stating in part, "One purpose of a scientific journal is to disseminate ideas so that individuals within the scientific community can consider, debate, possibly refute and possibly be influenced by those ideas."
From past experience, I might have expected to receive a response from the Editor advising that one or more additional reviewers would be consulted or perhaps suggesting an appropriate appeal process. But what I got instead was absolutely no response at all.
On December 28, 2006, I submitted two new papers to Astrophysical Journal Letters, entitled "New Concept for Internal Heat Production in Hot Jupiter Exo-Planets" (click here for pdf) and "Evidence Contrary to the Existing Exo-Planet Migration Concept" (click here for pdf). When I received no instructions to submit the required signed copyright transfer forms, I began to suspect the possibility of disparate treatment, specifically, that those two papers were not going to be accorded the fair and impartial consideration that is supposed to be the usual policy of the American Astronomical Society.
On January 24, 2007, I made a formal request to the Johns Hopkins University faculty member serving as Editor-in-Chief of the Astrophysical Journal that, because of a conflict of interest and an institutional conflict of interest, the editorial handling of my pending Astrophysical Journal Letters manuscripts should be removed from the influence of the current Editor of Astrophysical Journal Letters and from the influence of other personnel at the University of Texas. But the Editor-in-Chief of the Astrophysical Journal refused to act to avoid a conflict of interest situation. Clearly, my having made a formal complaint to the President of the University of Texas at Austin alleging academic malfeasance by that Editor, and my having filed a formal complaint to the American Astronomical Society, is certainly reason to believe that a lack of objectivity condition might well exist or at least appear to exist.
Needless to say, both papers were rejected of the basis of reviews, as lengthy as the papers, which were fraught with pejorative characterizations and extraneous material, but which failed to provide any legitimate, substantive, scientific basis for my papers being rejected. I never did receive an acknowledgement from the American Astronomical Society of the formal complaints I made, either from the President of the University of Texas at Austin or from the Council or from the Officers of that Society.
What I experienced from the American Astronomical Society was in my view scientific suppression and censorship of scientific ideas, not once but three times, which is all very strange, as the By-laws of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) clearly state: "As a professional society, the AAS must provide an environment that encourages the free expression and exchange of scientific ideas."
At the time I submitted those three papers to Astrophysical Journal Letters, I posted each without interference in the astrophysics category of arXiv.org, making these available for all to see. That was before the one-way exchanges with the American Astronomical Society. In light of published allegations of Cornell University "blacklisting" in the astrophysical category of arXiv.org (click here), one might wonder, whether my subsequent "forced re-classification" exclusion from the astrophysics category of arXiv.org might have a similar origin.
