You might say, they won't print something you wrote? Poor baby. The magazine probably disappoints most of the people who submit stuff for publication.
Here's what bothers me. Whenever somebody publishes something in the popular press based on anecdotal events that seems counter to the current conventional science, you get the scientist types sniffing about the absence of peer review and rigid experimental controls. To be reliable information, it must have been published in professional journals. Therefore the inference is inescapable that if it isn't published in a professional journal, it is somehow not reliable information.
But scientists aren't immune when it comes to error or fraud (cold fusion).
Here's why it sounds suspicious to me. A magazine prints a study where the author says he reviewed a thousand scientific articles and X% directly support the proposition that A is A, and Y% indirectly support the proposition that A is A. This isn't science. This is sorting and counting. Of 1000 samples, how many fit into which categories? Sorting and counting, right? Then another guy looks at the very same 1000 articles and he sorts them very differently. It appears the journal prefers one result to the other, because it won't report the second "test." It sounds as if the editors either (a) have picked sides before the contest began, or (b) don't want to admit that their own editorial review of the first article was defective -- they screwed up. So much for effective peer review based on publication. C'mon. How tough is it to sort and count?
So, if us non-scientific types are told that publication in a reputable professional journal is a test for reliability, what are we to make of this? Particularly when other scientists in the field say things like this:
Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."
He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.
I know this. When the D.A. presents a case to the grand jury, no defense attorneys are allowed and no defense is presented. And the grand jury decides to indict damn near every time.