Talk:Gary Schwartz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversial views[edit]

Scientist with very controversial views. This article needs better development of the ideas and experiments that he's done, but I admit I am not as good at explaining out these kind of scientific works. I also think an entry should be made on The VERITAS Research Program. Bobak 01:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Schwartz's research has garnered him much criticism from skeptics such as James Randi, Robert Todd Carroll, Paul Kurtz and Ray Hyman." None of the people quoted above with the exception of Hyman are scientists, nor do any of them conduct their own experiments or research. Anyone can criticize any research based on a priori beliefs, but I'm not sure why this is worthy of inclusion just because they consider themselves 'skeptics' and have managed to attract publicity in this (non-scientific) capacity. Again, Ray Hyman's views on this matter should be taken into account since he has criticized the actual methodology of the experiment in some detail. His criticisms and Gary's response should probably be included. TC

But the controversy is notable. We aren't saying the skeptical viewpoint is valid or not, but only that there has been a notable controversy involving said skeptics. I'll change the heading. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldo at Large and asking for $3.3 million[edit]

I added in information on the Geraldo at Large segment as well as that he asked the parents of a dead child for $3.3 million. C56C (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason left for removing that important issue. Contrary to the person to removed its claims, Gary did respond and it's included in the article. Having a national TV segment on asking for $3.3 million is not trival. BBiiis08 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geraldo is not a reliable source. It is simply a he said-she said accusation by a person known for hyperbole and misdirection. If you can find a reliable source to support Geraldo's claims, the entry should be in a "criticism" section. Tom Butler (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to this mystery if one is curious enough to look for it. Tom Butler, you tickle me to death. Kazuba (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So the bulk of the article cites Schwartz, but when a news report interviews parents and discusses an investigation it's not reliable. Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drrciHKm7TU The article had Schwartz's response, which seems not to be as nearly negative as your statement above. The article right now is very poorly done. It needs balance. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So balance it, BBiiis. Investigate further then show and reference both sides. Don't just complain, fix it. Perhaps "seeks verification" rather than "makes verification" will now satisfy you.Kazuba (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

team fortress 2?[edit]

i heard he voiced the demoman and the heavy classes? Yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.8.90 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is still confused on this point, it's a different Gary Schwartz... FiggyBee (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the man[edit]

Kazuba, you have a long history of attacking people involved in frontier science research. Please keep you edits to the subject, which is who the man is. If you want to attack his work, then start a new article. Tom Butler (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attacked Mr. Schwartz. I have only quoted from his own book about his debut reading with Allison DuBois. This is information he wants known. Kazuba (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see how the section stands out like a "Hey see this? he didn't do it they way I would have!" sign? It does not matter what you are quoting. The point is that there is no context for that kind of comment in the article. Try a little creative writing and find a way of making your point in a more general way. Try something like, "Dr. Schwartz has conducted research using mediums, amongst who is Allison DuBois, xxx and yyy." Tom Butler (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mediums Schwartz has worked with have already been pointed out. I am interested in what transpired with Allison DuBois when the two of them first met. What were the conditions? What was the dialogue? I have not said anywhere Schwartz should have done it this or that way. I presume he was pleased with his methods. I have no idea if he used audio and video recording. That is why there is a question mark. Maybe he did but, he does not mention this in his book. He only writes that he took notes and faced the medium, she spoke to him, and he came to his own conclusions. Which were so and so. Certainly since this information appears in his book Schwartz saw it was important. I'll try again. Let's see if this one makes you happy. You can edit rather than delete you know. I am only trying to record the history of events. I am interested in the history of events. You are not? Kazuba (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not remove it until I see where you are going with the entry. It is public knowledge that DuBois and Schwartz had a falling out. Of the many mediums he worked with, featuring DuBois so much out of any reasonable context has the appetence that you are attempting to make a point about his character by association.
I do not wish to spend time working on such an uninteresting article, but I do not wish to see others use Wikipedia to campaign their point, as you have a history of doing. Since you have embarked on a documentation of the procedures used by Schwartz, I assume you are going to be equally as diligent about the other research he has conducted. ... Perhaps with some of the less exciting mediums. If not, then expect me to complain. Tom Butler (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allison DuBois appears in the first chapter of Schwartz' book The Truth about Medium. I usually start reading a book from the beginning. Check out my page numbers. I expect someday I will get to the last page. I am in no hurry. Details, if they are there, historical detection is not easy, interest me. Perhaps I will come across something that you can live with. I don't think you could accept that Schwartz has his assistant repeat and verify the experiment over the phone with a different reader, Mary Ann Morgan. That the "deceased was dancing with William James" Schwartz found to be quite important. Why didn't he make the call himself and record it? Is that "exactly" what Morgan said? In his book the reading is given second hand. Was that all Morgan said? Kazuba (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. Whether or not the entry is accurate or even meaningful is not the issue. I know Gary, but I am not a Gary scholar. My point is that the wiki article is now a single subject discussion of his interaction with a medium. If you are going to have it in the article, then you have to put a whole lot more material about other mediums and such ... or take it out. Now it looks like you are pushing a point of view and that is not acceptable. Tom Butler (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2008 (

If it interests me there will be more material. You can add material too you know. Remember there was nothing here before about his experiments. Mary Ann Morgan only appears as stated above. She says one phrase. We know absolutely nothing about the words of Schwartz's assistant on the other end of the phone. I didn't write the book. I don't see how I can be responsible for material that is not in his book. I am not the single contributor to wikipedia. I expect more will come from other contributors. That is the way wikipedia works. Be patient. I too am not a Gary scholar. I have very little intention of reading ALL his books. He ommits a lot of details that could present a much clearer picture of what is going on. From the very first chapter he looks like he is out of his league when investigating mediums. The newspaper thing went right over his head. Here and there you find Gary giving feed back during a reading that he did not mention earlier and he is probably giving cues. (It is very difficult be neutral about his flaws. Just hold your tongue, Kazuba.) But I will plod on to see what happens. He is an interesting person. You have a very suspicious nature. Let me ask you did you read this book The Truth about Medium and it impressed you? Kazuba (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I was doing a general search looking for more information on Gary Schwartz after seeing him referenced elsewhere. I was glad to see that Wikipedia had an article (flagged with problems tho it is). Me looking for reference material on him is just one bit of evidence for you editors that yes, he is perhaps notable enough. I appreciated getting some basic info about him, anyway. Aaron.michels (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy skepticism would help science more than biased attitude. The CSICOP guys have been much criticised , because they hide important information when it doesn' t suit their views and even fire founding members of their own organisation when they question their methods ( as in the Truzzi case ). This organisation is much more towards hard-line debunking rather than skepticism based on scholarship. It is important to check out the methods of Randi and the members of the CSICOP just for the sake of truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.73.216 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? Huh? --Bobak (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected for better " understanding" .Please see above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.158.163 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.105.174 (talk) [reply]

What does CSICOP have to do with the notability of this guy?Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Living Memory section[edit]

TO user:Verbal: Reference material for Gary Schwartz is his own book I noticed this evening you removed Schwartz's findings of The Living Universe discovery. I am going to replace that data. I would prefer you edited the material, the promotional, peacock terms, and RS, whatever these things are, to your liking rather than delete material. This data was reseached and has been cited from its source. I have identified the authors' quotes. I saw them as being memorable. These are not mine. I hate to see my digging just thrown away, because I am just a semi-educated grunt author who has little skill with words. Kazuba (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed material ==The Universal Living Memory Theory== Gary Schwartz Ph.D. and Linda Russek, Ph. D. describe a new discovery, The Living Energy Universe, that they believe is likely to "alter the face of science, medicine and spirituality as much as Einstein's theories transformed the paradigms of physics." REF (The Living Energy Universe: A Fundamental Discovery that Transforms Science and Medicine, by Gary E.R. Schwartz, Ph.D and Linda G. S. Russek, Ph.D., Hampton Roads Publishing Co., 1999) According to Schwartz and Russek, "With the aid of the logic of systemic memory process (Stage E), we find scientific support for the controversial spiritual hypothesis that Christ himself may not only be eternal and alive, but be evolving as a living energy system as well." REF (The Living Energy Universe: A Fundamental Discovery that Transforms Science and Medicine, by Gary E.R. Schwartz, Ph.D and Linda G. S. Russek, Ph.D., Hampton Roads Publishing Co., 1999, page 37) Schwartz and Ruzzek have many other hypotheses in regard to their systemic memories process and Universal Living Memory discovery: water has a memory, donated organs carry the personality traits of their donors, REF ([1]) souls of dead remember, photons, and even energy can be eternal, solar systems and galaxies remember, a God process exists and cannot die, etc. But Schwartz and Ruzzek have only done exploratory examinations of their hypotheses. The critical testing of the validity of their many hypotheses, that may or may not produce scientific theory, they leave to others. REF(The Living Energy Universe: A Fundamental Discovery that Transforms Science and Medicine, by Gary E.R. Schwartz, Ph.D and Linda G. S. Russek, Ph.D., Hampton Roads Publishing Co., 1999)


refactored - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring some third party WP:RS that this is worthy of note in this article. What you have provided so far are primary sources written by the subject themselves. Also, Werdnakaz you could benifit from having a look at a few of our policies and guidelines, such as WP:AGF. I'll drop a welcome note on your page with more useful links. Verbal chat 16:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third Party Here Ok, I compared Verbal's most recent revision to the first version prior to his revision. I want to divide this into two sub-sections.
    1. everything prior to The Living Universe is fine except for a few copy-edit issues. One notable paragraph that Verbal removed was nothing less than a sarky personal snipe at "mainstream science".
    2. As for the Living Universe I have to say that inclusion would depend on the notability of the book. Are there any references available to confirm that the book is, itself, notable? Verbal pointed out that there were not any third party reliable sources in the article. This is a valid criticism. I have to say Werdnakaz that it doesn't matter if Verbal believes the ludicrous claims of Schwartz. What matters, and what Verbal has attempted to address, is whether Schwartz's claims pass the criteria for notability. I have to concur that they do not. Thank you.Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuba (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I have to admit that the Living Energy Universe is CERTAINLY NOT a POPULAR bestseller. Ranking # 652,850 in hardcover Amazon.com sales and #463,169 in paperback as compared to the reprint of Dean Radin's book The Conscious Universe ranked as #99,380 hardcover and #42,549 in paperback in Amazon.com sales. Judging by sales ratings, I guess it is more likely believed the universe is conscious but has no memory. Hmmm. Gary Schwartz's other book The Truth About Medium in hardcover is ranked at #223,018.[reply]

Ok, but the popularity, or lack thereof, does not speak to the notability of The Universal Living Memory Theory directly. What we need are verifiable and reliable third parties commenting on this theory to determine if it is notable enough for inclusion and, if so, in what form.Simonm223 (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuba (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)To Verbal Personal diaries and autobiographies are often used as primary sources in critical historical research. Many times the subject will use emotional words to express themself. I believe these emotional words express the subject's private thoughts, and are worth knowing. Example: I saw a black cat. I saw a scary black cat. (The subject feared this cat?)[reply]

Kazuba (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)"What we need are verifiable and reliable third parties". How is anyone going to be able to recognize an expert reliable third party on this theory?[reply]

Considering the field I would say commentary on the book or on the "theory" from psychologists (author's specialty) would be the best possible. But even reasonable commentary from mainstream media sources about the author's writing, demonstrating that his "theory" had some sort of wide-spread response would be fine. What would not constitute a valid source would be new age websites uncritically promoting the book or other sources quoting book without commentary. See what matters for notability is basically whether other people are saying something about the topic. In other words, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears its not a notable tree.
If you feel it's impossible to substantiate the notability of the topic it is probably not notable.Simonm223 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuba (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC) To Simonm223: Gary E. Schwartz, PhD, IS a professor of PSYCHOLOGY who teaches courses in PSYCHOLOGY in the departments of Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery at the University of Arizona. He received his PhD from Harvard University. Is HE notable? He has been to the skeptical and not so skeptical community. The article is addressed to Gary Schwartz not his many hypotheses. But certainly they are a part of him that make him notable. Thomas Edison tried to make a device that could be used to contact the dead. Is this NOTABLE? Isaac Newton did alchemy and messed around with the occult. Is this NOTABLE? Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, without permission, removed Albert Einstein's brain and keep it at his many residences. Is this NOTABLE? Why?[reply]

Those other articles, and the content you mention, all meet the WP:GNG. What's your point? Please stay on the topic of improving this article (and sign your posts at the end please). Verbal chat 10:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your last paragraph has to do with anything pertaining to this article. The discussion is not of the notability of Gary Schwartz (which would depend on the guidelines in WP:PROF but rather whether this sub-section, The Universal Living Memory Theory is notable. That has to be confirmed independent of the notability of Gary Schwartz after confirming his notability.Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized my last statement may be unclear. Let me clarify. The breakdown is like this:
Is Gary Schwartz Notable
  • Yes
If yes, is The Universal Living Memory Theory a notable concept?
  • Yes
  • No
  • No
If no The Universal Living Memory Theory is also not notable.
Depending on WP:PROF we should either be following the yes-no path or the no-no path unless a verifiable third party has discussed the theory as per my previous comment.Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schwartz and WP:PROF[edit]

Ok, did this treatment for a different person and accidentally posted under Schwartz. This time treatment is for Schwartz.

  • 1 The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

No.

  • 2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

No AFAIK.

  • 3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

No; unless being the director of the VERITAS project at University of Arizona counts. I would say no.

  • 4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

No.

  • 5 The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

No; he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. None of these are a named/personal chair appointment. No indication of "Distinguished Professor" appointment.

  • 6 The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

Depends, if his position as director of VERITAS counts for this category than yes, if not than no.

  • 7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

No.

  • 8 The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

No.

  • 9 The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

No.

So basically Schwartz's notability hinges on the importance of his directorship of VERITAS at U of Arizona. I am not informed enough on that program to comment. Discuss.Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting the University of Arizona website:
  • 3: No.
  • 6: No.

VERITAS directorship is not a highest level position as it is a project within Psychology department. Based on this Schwartz is not notable according to WP:PROF, proposing deletion pursuant to this.Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion[edit]

I'm proposing deletion of this article on the grounds that Schwartz fails to meet the WP:PROF criteria as per my previous analysis.Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Here's the standard short bio for Schwartz:

GARY E. SCHWARTZ, Ph.D., Director of the VERITAS Research Program, is a professor of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery at the University of Arizona and director of its Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health and its Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science. After receiving his doctorate from Harvard University, he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. Dr. Schwartz has published more than four hundred scientific papers, edited eleven academic books, is the author of The Afterlife Experiments, The G.O.D. Experiments, and The Truth About Medium, and is the co-author of The Living Energy Universe.

Sounds very notable to me. His center might seem "fringe" but it is the University of Arizona, after all, and couldn't be that disreputable. But even if you decide he fails on the WP:PROF guidelines, I think he would still make it just on the general WP:N guidelines--he's apparently quite well known. So I'll be bold and remove the tag, to make it clear there is no consensus for deletion.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


None of that matters for the criteria of WP:PROF. Not every professor is notable by Wikipedia standards. I'm putting the prod tag back. IF you disagree please address the points in the analysis above.Simonm223 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe he meets WP:N either.Simonm223 (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and just to clarify, the fringe status of his work is not the reason I doubt he meets WP:PROF. The reason why I doubt his notability is because his directorship of VERITAS is the directorship of a research project within a department and the WP:PROF guidelines specify that a professor is notable if he holds, and I quote:
  • a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level,
  • a position as an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
  • a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
  • a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
And directorship of VERITAS does not meet those criteria.Simonm223 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for sake of comparisson Anthon.Eff I know you are active on the Ian Stevenson page. Now Stevenson is widely considered a fringe professor for... research... not much different from that of Schwartz. However Stevenson is notable. Why? Because he was the head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia; that meets the WP:PROF criteria of:
  • a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
Do you see what I am saying?


You apparently didn't read your own template. It says that if it is removed, don't replace it. So don't. Your next step, if you wish to pursue this, would be WP:AFD. You can try your line of reasoning there.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. AfD posted.Simonm223 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since the decision was keep I hope that some who supported keep & edit will lend a hand cleaning this mess of an article up.Simonm223 (talk)

22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Medium TV show and the kids[edit]

According to Schwartz it is significant that the Medium (tv series) is appearing at this moment of history, the first decade of the twenty first century.(ref The Truth about Medium by Gary E. Schwartz, Ph. D., with William L. Simon, Hampton Books, 2005, page 117)

I can only guess why Schwartz found this significant. The Medium (tv series), 3 Jan 2005 was the first TV show supposedly based upon the life of a living and tested medium, Allsion DuBois broadcast across the USA. Schwartz puts it in these exact words,(page 117 The Truth about Medium) "The fact that Medium is mostly entertainent rather than based on actual experience is less important than the fact it is appearing this time in history. Think about this. Millions of mothers and their children are watching NBC's Medium, and soon millions more will be watching other shows ready to capitalize on NBC's success."

Laurie Campbell, another medium tested by Schwartz, used to claim she wrote scripts and was the inspiration for the tv series Ghost Whisperer 23 sept 2005. She does not seem to say that anymore. Again I can only guess that Schwartz thinks THIS is the time in the USA to expose children to the "reality" and talents of their own mediumship, for next he writes (page 117 The Truth about Medium) that he believes there is a sort of transformation taking place in a subset of paranormal children; the children of mediums and possibly the Indigo children. I suppose Schwartz means that the future and advancement of medium science is in the hands of these special children. ( The pods are opening and they are here! Invasion of the body snatchers Kazuba (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why this is worthy of inclusion. please come up with some context or sources for your hypothesis above, then we can talk about adding this material. Verbal chat 14:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you direct quotes. What more can I do. Why do I think it should be added to this material? It shows the that Schwartz has reached some rather odd conclusions about the effects of a tv show on viewers, especially today's children. Kazuba (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biography[edit]

This article is overburdened by narratives of various psychic 'readings' rendered in minute detail, making it a substandard biography. Much of the sources (Schwartz himself) are poor. I'll try to make some improvements to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

This article relies on primary sources for much of it's content. Secondary sources are needed. The lead doesn't accurately reflect the content of the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldo at Large show controversy[edit]

On the article was this: "On Fox News on the Geraldo at Large show, October 6, 2007, Geraldo Rivera alleged Schwartz had overstepped his position as a university researcher by requesting money from a bereaved father to fund research into mediumship. Schwartz responded that the alleged victim had contacted him after he'd had successful private sessions with a medium Judith Campbell, that he was not a medium and had never claimed to be one, and that Geraldo at Large had not contacted him for a reply"

The source given was Aykroyd, Peter. and Nart, Angela. (2009). A History of Ghosts: the True Story of Seances, Mediums, Ghosts, and Ghostbusters. Rodale, p. 216. On page 216 the above is not found, what is actually found is a mere reference to the Geraldo at Large show controversy, none of the above text. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

I'm tempted to revert all the recent edits to this BLP based on some containing odd editorializing such as this:: The first article in the series<ref name="Schwartz-2014"/> has been received on May 12, 2014 and accepted on May 16, 2014 suggesting that peer-review is not needed when divine matters are concerned.. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the text to be more neutral: "The first article in the series has been received on May 12, 2014 and accepted on May 16, 2014 suggesting that peer-review has been very fast." EleOk6e3ih (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What source has made the observation that those dates are "suggesting that peer review has been very fast"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear LuckyLouie, Schwartz's article was accepted for 4 days from submission to acceptance. If you are not a working scientist, or have no idea how the peer-review process works, you can consult recent Open Access work for some scientometric data: Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics volume 113, pages 633–650 (2017). In particular, take a look of Table 2: Total review duration of accepted papers For Medicine, you can see in the table that the average peer-review process takes 12 weeks = 12 x 7 = 84 days. For Psychology, the peer-review is even longer, on average 20 weeks = 20 x 7 = 140 days. The time period of 4 days for peer-review of Schwartz's article is "very fast" in academic standards. If you deem some of this information as important, you can add it to the article. To put it in perspective, the peer-review took only 2.8% of the time it normally takes for an average accepted paper in psychology. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the observation is not attributable to any reliable source, you simply looked at the numbers and decided you felt it was very fast, and added your opinion in Wikipedia's voice. What you have described above is WP:SYNTHESIS because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits definition of the average duration of the peer-review process, the time for peer review of Schwartz's article was "very fast". To make your contribution consistent with the encyclopedia's policies, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Schwartz paper and makes the same analysis regarding the duration of the peer-review process. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia. Before editing further, I suggest you review our editorial policies and guidelines, particularly WP:V and WP:OR. - 21:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Schwartz&oldid=1210273787"