I found it...
Published Quarterly by McCrone Research Institute the journal is dedicated to the advancement of all forms of microscopy for the biologist, mineralogist, metallographer or chemist.
Contrary to claims by McCrone's company, it is not peer-reviewed except for an in-house committee of McCrone publication employees. [Even if it were truly peer-review, do you seriously believe that a committee (probably chaired by McCrone) would nix an article written by the boss?]
The journal was originally "The Microscope; The British Journal of Microscopy and Photomicrography" and was purchased in 1962 by McCrone Research Institute.
The Microscope is an international journal founded by Arthur Barron in 1937 and dedicated to the advancement of all forms of microscopy for the biologist, mineralogist, metallographer or chemist.No matter what the field of research, the microscope is always a useful adjunct and often an essential tool.
A successful journal for microscopists must therefore interest and benefit a very wide spectrum of scientists. The Microscope accomplishes this by emphasizing new advances in microscope design, new accessories, new techniques, and unique applications to the study of particles, films, or surfaces of any substance.
A major source of papers for The Microscope is the INTER/ MICRO symposium held each year in Chicago. More Information about the Inter/Micro Symposium
The journal is also open to papers from other meetings or papers written expressly for publication. Also included are microscopy related book reviews.
Published Quarterly by McCrone Research Institute, Edited by Dr. Gary J. Laughlin
Previous Editors:
Robert M. Weaver (2004-2005)
David A. Stoney (1996-1999, 2001-2004)
Walter C. McCrone (1965-1995, 2000)
Harold M. Malies (1962-1965)
Arthur L.E. Barron (1937-1962)
Apparently, this is a companion publication of now discontinued "The Microscopist" which was another publication of McCrone Research Institute.
Now let's look at the other "august" Peer-reviewed journal... "Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988"
That is German for "The Viennes Journal of [the] Supernatural in Science and the Arts 1987/1988" It appears to be the German equivalent of the Skeptical Inquirer.
The article itself is about Richard Feynman's 1974 CalTech Commencement speech on "Cargo Cult Science" The includes the scientists investigating the Shroud of Turin as a prime example of Cargo Cult science in the light of the "impeccable work" done by Walter C. McCrone as reported in their own journal in 1988... and compares them to people like Erich von Daniken, etc. It calls the critics of McCrone psuedoscientists. Feynman did not refer to Shroud studies in his 1974 speech.:
German - "Walter McCrone benutzte möglichst einfache, gut erprobte und adäquate Untersuchungsmethoden, was teils – mangels Medienwirksamkeit – gegen ihn verwendet wurde. Er betrieb Archiv- und Quellenarbeit zu Herkunft, Alter, Stil und Herstellungsweise des Tuches, verglich Proben vom Grabtuch mit eigenem Blut auf Textilien (wobei er deutliche Unterschiede feststellte) und konnte mit polarisations- und elektronenmikroskopischen Methoden Farbpigmente auf dem Grabtuch nachweisen[4]. "
English - "Walter McCrone used simple, well tested and adequate research methods, what was used partly - for lack of medium effectiveness - against him. It operated file and source work to origin, age, style and mode of production. Older, style and mode of production of the cloth, it compared samples of the grave cloth with own blood on textiles (whereby it determined clear differences) and could prove with polarization and electron microscopic methods [found] pigments on the shroud..."German - "McCrone interpretierte das Grabtuch als mittelalterliche Tuchmalerei; seine Datierung wurde auch durch eine später erfolgte C14 Altersbestimmung bestätigt. "
English - "McCrone interpreted the grave cloth as medieval cloth painting; its dating was [confirmed] also by a [later] C14 age determination [test] taken place.
It goes on to comment that McCrone's simpler techniques were better than the Cargo Cult scientist critics sophisticated "Complex" tests and machines because McCrone proved the Shroud a medieval fake.
All-in-all, I don't think that "Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988" is a peer-reviewed scientific journal...
It appears the McCrone's "The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?" article (Article first page - full article may be purchased for $25) in Accounts of Chemical Research 1990, 23, 77-83 may have been peer-reviewed but it is interesting that it was only submitted after the 1988 Carbon-14 Tests and 10 years after McCrone did his research. This very, very late, publication of his old work is interesting in its timing. McCrone finally published when the reviewers were likely to be aware of the 1988 C14 results... and look on his paper as being confirmed. It would also tend to prevent many would-be critics from disagreeing with him as the C14 tests seemed to have trumped everything else.
It certainly wasn't current work because McCrone no longer had any of the Shroud samples in his possession because they had been personally repossessed from McCrone in 1981 by STURP director, Dr. John Jackson, after McCrone ignored request after request to return STURP samples he held (which McCrone referred to as "his samples") or to send them on to other researchers who were scheduled to work on them. Any peer-review of McCrone's work by chemists reviewing his article in Acc. Che. Res. had to be done WITHOUT access to the samples... and is therefore only a review of methodology.
I just went line by line through every post of yours on this thread. The only thing which could even be MISTAKEN for personal animus was #250:
If you cannot move beyond your ONE discredited source, you are willfully ignorant of the facts.
and #261: I submit you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You have heard and repeated something that is untrue.
and #284:
I also find it amusing you criticized someone for apparently using Wikipedia as an authoritative source and you are doing the same thing...
and #293:
His mind is made up... and it is locked like a bank vault. His science (as is his mentor;s Schafersman)
Rather thin gruel for someone accusing you of ad hominem.
I as usual was far more crass, as I tolerate fools gladly but have far less patience for what looks like dishonesty.
The proof is left as an exercise for the interested reader.
Cheers!