Discussion
Started 29th Oct, 2021

Recruiting Research Participants

I am a doctoral student replicating Laux et al.'s (2017) research (with some differences) that appeared in the ACA’s Journal of Addiction and Offender Counseling, October 2017, volume 38. That journal article is entitled, "Substance Use Assessment Instruments: 13 Years Later." The Laux et al.'s (2017) research extended Juhnke et.al's (2003) study, entitled, "Assessment Instruments used by Addictions Counselors, also published in the ACA’s Journal of Addiction and Offender Counseling.
If you are at least 25 years of age, a certified or licensed addictions counselor, and would like to participate in this research, please click the link to view the Informed Consent and to take a short survey. Your participation can help expand the limited research on this subject. Thank you very much.
Roseann Lynch
Regent University
907-247-5000

Similar questions and discussions

Is is ethically acceptable for editors to just yank your article from the review process without providing a single reason?
Question
40 answers
  • Marco PereiraMarco Pereira
The offended paper is here:
This is a rhetorical question since, in my mind, that is utterly non-acceptable.
I say that while accepting the reality that it takes time to write a few paragraphs in a rejection letter.
That said, it might take years to polish the arguments contained in a paper.
In my case, it took 16 years.
My issue is that, on purpose, I chose to tackle the Big Bang Theory first. It is the weakest model in the whole Physics. There are "Crisis in Cosmology" articles written by everyone and their cats. There is Hubble Tension, S8 tension... Missing Dark Matter, Early Galaxy Formation Conundrum...
Not to mention the lack of any evidence of a False Vacuum, Inflaton Field or Inflaton Particle, etc, etc.
My theory starts with a new model for matter, where matter is made of shapeshifting deformations of the metric (so, it is not Mass Deforms Metric, but modulated metric is mass).
It cannot be simpler. It allows the Universe to have just space, deformed space and time - the simplest possible model.
Occam's Razor will tell you that this model should be part of the conversation.
The Universe starts from a Heisenberg-Dictated Metric Hyperspherical Fluctuation, which after partial recombination is left with an Inner Dilation Layer (IDL) and the Outermost Contraction Layer (OCL).
As one would expect OCL breaks apart when it starts to move, pushed by the IDL. This process has a physical analogy in the Prince Rupert Drop
SO, the model is disappointly simple. No metrics, nothing for you to polish... just a simple model that explains EVERYTHING.
It also debunks General Relativity (Einstein's equations do not describe the Universe expansion). And replicates all Einstein's successes, while providing simpler explanations (instead of time dilation, we have the weakening of forces with absolute velocity).
What about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY? Well, we all know we can define absolute velocity using the CMB. Period. So, absolute velocity (and the breakdown of Relativity) shouldn't be a surprise.
So, my theory also challenges the current Cosmic Distance Ladder and in doing so (using an epoch-dependent law of Gravitation), it parameterless predicts the distances using just the redshifts. The predictions are attached.
So, in doing so, it attacks Dark Matter and Dark Energy and all the sordid interests behind them. I say sordid in the sense that I believe that all these entrenched interests are at play in this summary rejection of my work.
Why would I say that? There is a simple reason. If an editor (and all the other editors) don't bother to justify their actions, one is left with nothing to do other than speculate on the WHY.
Why is it ok for preprint repositories to block my already published work?? That is happening (and happened during the last 16 years) at the Los Alamos Archives.
Why would it be ethical for an editor not to write a single paragraph pointing to an specific scientific reason for yanking a paper out of the review process?
How calous these people can be with respect to Science and Mankind's Future? Science is the key to the Future. It shouldn't be at the mercy of unconfessable motivations.
How much of autistic behavior could be explained by abnormal development of frontal cortex?
Question
3 answers
  • Noora PoranenNoora Poranen
Study by Eric Courchesne et al :
It explains in detail what happens to autists brain during the development. And it seems like that Frontal cortex starts to develop too quickly and then after that development almost stops at around age 7-11.
So in a nutshell if that "damage" abnormality happens at around that age you might end up with an individual with impaired ability to distinguish right and wrong (in some degree). Same with autists choosing more often the easy way rather than harder one. Thirdly autists have difficulties with regulating their behavior. And all those things are linked to frontal cortex... I wonder if there is some sort of connection....

Related Publications

Article
In October 2001, an article was published in the Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling (JAOC) to examine the journal's submission patterns, topic areas, and authors from 1979 through 1998. The current authors reviewed articles published in JAOC between 1999 and 2004 to provide an updated analysis of the types of information published in the...
Article
AIRCRAFT INSTRUMENTS THE instruments used in aircraft are of a highly specialised nature. They have to stand up to very severe conditions in service. They are subjected to continual vibration during the whole time the engine is running, and to severe shocks in landing and when taxying on the ground. They are expected to function no matter what the...
Article
Full-text available
In production and development, open source as a development model promotes universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone.
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.