Originally Posted by
Spoonrobot
Jan Heine, Editor, Bicycle Quarterly November 28, 2014 at 7:22 am
#
Just like you, I have published extensively in peer-reviewed journals in my previous career as a geologist.
BQ contributor Mark Vande Kamp still works as a scientist designing exactly these kinds of studies. He frequently publishes in peer-reviewed journals.
Many people assume that
Bicycle Quarterly‘s articles are not peer-reviewed. This is incorrect: All our important test articles are peer-reviewed. This is unique among cycling publications. The double-blind test was reviewed by Jim Papadopoulos and Hank Folsom. Jim is probably the most scientific of bicycle researchers, having published in Science and other prestigious journals.
I've had some conversations with Mark and Jim about Jan's experiments. Jim said something along the lines of, "I've tried." Mark was pretty skeptical that field tests could be used to estimate some of the things that Jan says they can. I think they have less influence on Jan's experiments and write-ups than that excerpt suggests.
[Edited to add:] That may have sounded harsher than I intended. In my first post in this thread, I said that Jan has interesting ideas, lots of them, but doesn't do good experiments; and that I give him credit for interesting ideas but not dispositive proof. There's a place in this world for people who have interesting ideas, even if not all of them pan out. I'm not very imaginative so I like it when people with imagination contribute. The world would be duller without them.