[aruanan]

One proposal is for journals to actually reserve some small part of their space specifically to explore "fringe issues".

Remember, though, that "fringe" stuff is, by its nature, virtually unlimited in scope. The better way would be for "peer review" to continue to get criticism until it becomes synonymous with CYA and then lose out to people actually looking at data.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Remember, though, that "fringe" stuff is, by its nature, virtually unlimited in scope."

I suspect that the part of the "fringe" that is actually doing serious work is a limited subset, and that any competent journal author should be able to recognize serious science vs. "garage crackpots". The thing to avoid is "topics that must be rejected at all costs".

"The better way would be for "peer review" to continue to get criticism until it becomes synonymous with CYA and then lose out to people actually looking at data.

I'm not sure I understand how this would work. Can you elaborate??