That’s a fair question, one that you could probably guess is asked of us quite frequently–so we wrote an official response on our Q&A page:
Q9: Why is the Universal Model not written and published from within the scientific establishment?
A: Today, most new scientific theories and papers submitted through the scientific establishment undergo a rigorous review process where establishment-trained peers decide whether the content is worthy and fits within the confined views of their respective field. In the past, many large changes in science through new discovery have not come from within the scientific establishment, but from individuals that used an outside perspective. New theories and papers within the establishment are typically complicated, built on old theories and written to the well-schooled peer groups that continue to believe in the old theories. The Universal Model is not about complicated theories; it is about simple models that demonstrate new natural laws, which are observable in nature. This method of science is a return to the original way scientific inquiry and study was conducted centuries ago.
Essentially, it comes down to the fact that our research attempts to alter fundamental theories in nearly every major field of science. Were we to submit a single one of our hundreds of claims to a journal, it would likely be dismissed because it would contradict other fields of science that scientists “know” are correct, although we actually do have explanations for those apparent conflicts as well. That being said, we have plans to submit our research in chunks to various journals to be peer reviewed, if for no other reason than to satisfy those calling for an official peer-review of our work. Hang tight.
Another thought– The framework of the UM actually comes from peer-reviewed journal articles, college level textbooks, significant science magazines, and books written by prominent geoscientists. This work is hardly a collection of totally new observations. Rather, it is a synthesis of observations made by hundreds of scientists over the past 100+ years, with some exceptional discoveries made by UM researchers. To a large degree, it simply presents a new way of looking at essentially the same things in nature, using many of the same journal articles.
In the end, you’re right, Preston. The status quo is to put articles through the scientific establishment so they can determine on behalf of the world whether our research is at all useful. However, we decided instead to write our research in the format of a textbook instead of going through the impossibly long process of chopping up our research into isolated, bizarre claims to be reviewed over an additional number of decades. Perhaps it has been careless or selfish on our part to be so excited about what we have found that we would put our reputations, and in some cases careers, on the line so that our work could be reviewed by as many people as possible in its entirety in a very short amount of time. If we are wrong, the world can laugh at us and just move along. If we are right even 10% of the time, I’d say it’s worth it. I’m sorry that our approach is so appalling so the average scientist, but I don’t think it should be. It’s socially risky to skip the formal peer-review process, but I’d hardly say the work is not being peer-reviewed right now. Many professional scientists are reviewing our work and will have a lot to say about it publicly; it just isn’t being reviewed for publication in a journal.
Here’s a question for you, Preston. Are college textbooks typically peer reviewed? If not, then would you generally insist that all textbooks go through such a process?