Who cares?

Elsevier is the world's largest publisher of scientific journals and books. One of the journals is relatively new, called Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing. Elsevier tracks visits to their websites to help rank the scientific impact of their 2,000 journals. In a survey reported in December it recorded over 1 million visits by customers who viewed 4.8 million pages.

Elsevier also tracks the top 10 most-downloaded articles each month, and which journals they were published in. One of those articles was published recently in Explore, so the impact of that new journal is rising fast. I found of special interest their observation that the second most popular download for the September/October issue of Explore was "Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal," by me, Gail Hayssen, Masaru Emoto, & Takashige Kizu.

So who cares? As I've written before, lots of scientists do. I see it directly because I answer emails from scientists all the time. But stats like the present one from Elsevier are beginning to reflect that interest as well. Most scientists are not quite ready to come out of the closet yet. But that closet door is definitely showing signs of movement.

(I thank an alert reader for spotting an error in an earlier version of this post -- the Double-Blind Test paper was not in the December issue of Explore, as I had originally written.)


Phronk said…
Excellent news! Congrats.

This is especially encouraging, since (as far as I know), users of Elsevier are primarily people directly involved in academia. If enough of them open up to this cutting-edge research, then hopefully it will lead to mainstream scientific acceptance, and the research dollars that go along with it.
Levan said…
Hello Mr. Radin,

I published in the UK Paranormal Magazine Nr. 17 and 18 two articles regarding my precognitive dreams. One of them you can ckeck also here: http://www.precognitive-dreams.com/dreamblog.html

Best regards
Levan Gvelesiani

Popular posts from this blog

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Show me the evidence