Good science requires the free circulation of theories between scientists in the same field, between scientific disciplines, and between amateur and professional scientists. It also requires analysis and revue to limit the spread of "Junk Science".
The Internet is noted for the ease with which anyone can publish anything. There is no critical revue, no editorial staff, and no way to judge the credibility of anything published or anyone writing the material.
Several Internet periodicals attempt to mirror the professional practice of the paper periodicals in scientific fields. But then the difficulty of publication can be as stifling to creativity as it is with the paper periodicals.Internet style publication therefore requires Internet style critical revue. I propose setting up web pages (This isn’t one of them) that have at least two levels of publishing articles. The first level is the "Wild theory" level, similar to conventional Internet fare where anything can be printed. But it is printed in a web site set up to accept any and all criticism, with a democratic voting and rating system that dumps the information into an easily viewed database. The theories that are debunked by frequent attacks have many "black marks" permanently attached to them. Those that get high ratings and good "revues" eventually are promoted to the second tier, of respectable articles.
A slightly less democratic method would be to eventually limit the revue to those who have already published in the respectable article section. Or to use some sort of combination of democratic and egalitarian revue. The easiest method is to send submitted articles to a revue committee (made up of previously published authors) that would weed out unscientific material. Then the published articles would include a public voting form. Reader’s response (by voting or submitting comments) would determine the length of time a theory would remain on the web. Our "YOUR THEORIES" web page fits this latter pattern, specializing in radical, but technically feasible theories.
Sites arranged according to this "public revue" pattern could be set up in various fields to minimize the editorial load on the webmaster. The secret is a good database that records the "Voting", marks the articles, weeds out the bad apples quickly, and promotes the good articles automatically to higher levels. INVENTION CONCEPTS first efforts in this field are slightly more primitive than this ideal, but will serve as a public trial of truly public critical revue of new scientific theories.