• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Merged]Peer-reviewed technical paper to appear in mainstream journal

tanabear said:
That is an experiment that can be replicated. Using impact damage and fire to destroy a steel-frame high-rise the way WTC 1 and 2 were has not been duplicated. Until someone can give me their technique/method on how to do this your belief must be considered pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

I think pseudoscience is becoming the new catch phrase of the "truth" movement replacing faster than freefall.

BTW Do you think it would be possible to recreate the exact same collisions and effects.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Collapst time? Watch the videos, and then read NIST, or just pay attention. 9/11 truth cherry picks, as if they are dolts who want to mislead others.
Click to expand...
We count the east penthouse collapse as part of the collapse time for WTC 7. Shouldn't we also count the collapse of the spires as part of the tower collapse time? Just asking questions. :p
 
lapman said:
We count the east penthouse collapse as part of the collapse time for WTC 7. Shouldn't we also count the collapse of the spires as part of the tower collapse time? Just asking questions. :p
Click to expand...

I think we should, yes. But 9/11 conspiracy advocates tend to develop sticky Caps Lock buttons when I do.
 
Update on Bentham -- No News

I'm back in town again, wanted to follow up.

I've received no correspondence of any kind from Bentham since the initial acknowledgment from Mr. Alam. Certainly none from their technical staff.

I'll get out a reminder tomorrow.

So far, their behavior is continuing to trend unprofessionally. If this persists, I have a pretty good idea how Dr. Jones's article pa$$ed their peer review proce$$. But time will tell.
 
R.Mackey said:
I'm back in town again, wanted to follow up.

I've received no correspondence of any kind from Bentham since the initial acknowledgment from Mr. Alam. Certainly none from their technical staff.

I'll get out a reminder tomorrow.

So far, their behavior is continuing to trend unprofessionally. If this persists, I have a pretty good idea how Dr. Jones's article pa$$ed their peer review proce$$. But time will tell.
Click to expand...

Mackey,

Do you think it likely that the journal would have published a "truther" paper, with all the implications that comes along with it (assuming their claims are all rubbish), for just another $600 bucks. I mean at some point the decision was made to publish the article. Now this very well could be a garbage journal, but would they seriously sink so low as to publish an article that is linked to a loose organization that blames the government for 9-11, all based on lies, just for another $600 bucks?!?!?! If I was running a similar scam journal I would have to consider if publishing the article would cost me more than $600 in losses due to the attention such article could possibly bring (other future authors may decide against publishing there).

I don't buy into it. I could see them publishing other rubbish that doesn't carry such stigma just for money (technical articles with major flaws); but, not a 9-11 piece for propaganda (with is essentially what it is, assuming it is all rubbish).

Do you think it to be more likely that one or more of the decision makers already believe in the woo? I find this more likely, especially considering the large review board.
 
Sizzler said:
Do you think it likely that the journal would have published a "truther" paper, with all the implications that comes along with it (assuming their claims are all rubbish), for just another $600 bucks. [...]

Do you think it to be more likely that one or more of the decision makers already believe in the woo? I find this more likely, especially considering the large review board.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping to get some answers from them so I don't have to speculate.

However, since you asked, my guess is one of the following:

1. They honestly have no idea who Dr. Jones or his friends are, didn't read the paper too carefully, and published it anyway. They wanted the fee and to boost their article count and, hopefully, exposure. Recall that the Truth Movement is not nearly so popular or famous as they like to think.

2. Or, Dr. Jones supplied the reviewers, and the editors didn't vet them properly, or check on their recommendations. The website's submission process encourages submitters to suggest reviewers, only requiring that they are "from different institutions." None of the submitters have any institution, I believe. I actually find this to be more plausible.

But, again, this is idle speculation. I could be wrong, and I hope I am. Still, thus far it does not look good at all.
 
Sizzler said:
Do you think it likely that the journal would have published a "truther" paper, with all the implications that comes along with it (assuming their claims are all rubbish), for just another $600 bucks. I mean at some point the decision was made to publish the article. Now this very well could be a garbage journal, but would they seriously sink so low as to publish an article that is linked to a loose organization that blames the government for 9-11, all based on lies, just for another $600 bucks?!?!?! If I was running a similar scam journal I would have to consider if publishing the article would cost me more than $600 in losses due to the attention such article could possibly bring (other future authors may decide against publishing there).
Click to expand...

If the business model of the journal is to make money out of authors by charging them to publish material of such poor quality that reputable journals won't touch it, I suspect they'll have considered the impact on their business of publishing material of such poor quality that reputable journals won't touch it. Basically, when you know you're the last resort of the desperate, it doesn't matter how much distance you come last by.

Dave
 
R.Mackey said:
I'm hoping to get some answers from them so I don't have to speculate.

However, since you asked, my guess is one of the following:

1. They honestly have no idea who Dr. Jones or his friends are, didn't read the paper too carefully, and published it anyway. They wanted the fee and to boost their article count and, hopefully, exposure. Recall that the Truth Movement is not nearly so popular or famous as they like to think.

2. Or, Dr. Jones supplied the reviewers, and the editors didn't vet them properly, or check on their recommendations. The website's submission process encourages submitters to suggest reviewers, only requiring that they are "from different institutions." None of the submitters have any institution, I believe. I actually find this to be more plausible.

But, again, this is idle speculation. I could be wrong, and I hope I am. Still, thus far it does not look good at all.
Click to expand...

I agree, and find both of your suggestions/speculations plausible, if not likely. I did find it very amusing that they were allowed to choose their own reviewers. Seems like that automatically brings into it a bias.

I have not seen this happen much in the medical world, although my involvement in research is limited (I have contributed to a few routine papers that were published, but little else). Is it common practice in the engineering, or pure science world to allow one to choose their own "Peer reviewers"?

TAM:)
 
Allowing someone to choose the reviewers gets rid of independence which I believe is a major component of true peer review. While I have no experience with peer review in technical fields I doubt any journal respected in it field would allow this practice.
 
Actually it is quite normal and legitimate to REQUEST particular reviewers for a submitted paper. If done properly, such a request need not imply that an author is attempting to bypass a fair review process. On the contrary, this approach can save the journal the trouble of figuring out who the relevant "experts" might be. And the journal is not obliged to use the requested reviewers - the editors may opt to use one that has been requested by the submitter and one that is selected by the journal.
 
Apollo has a different experience than me. In my limited experience in engineering, the journal editors always select the reviewers. Maybe the difference is in science vs. engineering, or how narrow the subject matter is.
 
Apollo20 said:
Actually it is quite normal and legitimate to REQUEST particular reviewers for a submitted paper. If done properly, such a request need not imply that an author is attempting to bypass a fair review process. On the contrary, this approach can save the journal the trouble of figuring out who the relevant "experts" might be. And the journal is not obliged to use the requested reviewers - the editors may opt to use one that has been requested by the submitter and one that is selected by the journal.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It would be nice if the editor-in-chief knew who the world experts were in every conceivable subdiscipline. It would also be nice if unicorns scattered gold bricks over my sofa cushions every Tuesday. I suspect I'll see the second before I see the first.

It's fairly common to allow authors both to suggest reviewers and to suggest people to exclude from reviewing (on the grounds of personal animosity of something like that). It's not just common, but standard and recommended practice at promotion/tenure time. It's unheard of to allow authors to pick reviewers.

Even the mighty NSF accepts this : from their current grant proposal guide (Jan 2008):

c. List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include (optional)

Proposers may include a list of suggested reviewers who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal. Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not review the proposal, indicating why. These suggestions are optional. GPG Exhibit II-2 contains information on conflicts of interest that may be useful in preparation of this list.

The cognizant Program Officer handling the proposal considers the suggestions and may contact the proposer for further information. However, the decision whether or not to use the suggestions remains with the Program Officer.
Click to expand...

Is there anyone who wants to suggest that the NSF is not respected?
 
In terms of animosity, isn't scientific peer-review anonymous? It is in my field (humanities).
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
In terms of animosity, isn't scientific peer-review anonymous? It is in my field (humanities).
Click to expand...

Not always. Some fields (and some journals) demand that papers be written "anonymously" for review, but many don't, simply because it doesn't work. For example, there are only about four or five groups working in experimental high energy particle physics, because there are only about five machines out there capable of doing the work. So when you get to the section that says "We used the Wotsamatta U. Shopvac 3300 to test our conjecture," you know instantly that the paper is by Dr. Niedermeyer and his group at Wotsamatta.

For NSF-style project proposals, anonymous review isn't possible, since the qualifications of the proposing researcher are among the criteria. (This is true for the humanities as well; the NEH grant reviews are not done anonymously.)

So a lot of groups have just said "the hell with it; why pretend?"
 
lapman said:
Let's not forget that part of #2 is to build a minimum of a 120 story building covering 15 acres to house the experiment so they could create the environmental conditions that were present that day. When we talk about the money that would be involved, the twoofers are quick to point out the money spent on the war that they say should be spent on programs here.
Click to expand...

Don't forget what the statistical error on a single measurement is.

In other words, tanabear: You can't just do the experiment once. In order to get a decent sample size, you'd have to destroy say ... 10+ WTC complexes per degree of freedom.

Good luck with your science.
 
Sizzler said:
Do you think it to be more likely that one or more of the decision makers already believe in the woo? I find this more likely, especially considering the large review board.
Click to expand...

Sizzler,

You're assuming the size of the board on paper is meaningful and that the board actually has a real function.
 
R.Mackey said:
I'm back in town again, wanted to follow up.

I've received no correspondence of any kind from Bentham since the initial acknowledgment from Mr. Alam. Certainly none from their technical staff.
Click to expand...

Mackey,

Assuming you do open up a dialogue with them, I wonder if they'd be amenable to publishing (anonymized or not) the peer reviews (or at least parts of them.) An unusual step to be sure, but not unprecedented, and a good way to help legitimize their process.
 
Mr.D said:
Mackey,

Assuming you do open up a dialogue with them, I wonder if they'd be amenable to publishing (anonymized or not) the peer reviews (or at least parts of them.) An unusual step to be sure, but not unprecedented, and a good way to help legitimize their process.
Click to expand...

Lord God of Hosts and all His little archangels, this strikes me as a bad idea.

They'll never be able to get another peer review done.

Besides, what would it show? If the peer reviewers didn't like it and they published it anyway, it shows them to be money-grubbing weasels. If the reviewers liked it, then it shows Bentham to not have very good judgement when it comes to reviewer selection. Either way, it reflects very badly on Bentham.

For a reputable publisher, "the only way out is through." They should simply admit "we made a mistake" and take their lumps. Everyone understands mistakes and that they happen, even at the best companies. People are much less understanding about attempted defenses of the indefensible.
 
Another update

I received a reply from Mr. Alam to my reminder today, and it is not promising.

He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.

I have informed him that, since the authors of dubious papers do not set the standards for journals, that his response is entirely inappropriate, and have reminded him that it is the editors who should be responding.

Thus far, only Mr. Alam has responded to anything, and it appears that he has no idea how real journals operate.

At this point, I am about 80 percent convinced that the Bentham Open Access Journals are merely a vanity publication. I do still have some doubt because there are a great many -- too many! -- professionals listed on their editorial board, and the few I've checked up on appear to be legitimate. I will be taking this discussion to them with or without Mr. Alam, and we will get to the bottom of this.
 
R.Mackey said:
I received a reply from Mr. Alam to my reminder today, and it is not promising.

He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.
Click to expand...
They have not forwarded the promised comments, after I wrote.

Classic open loop, we got the money; reader beware.
 
Score 1 to the 'truthers'. They've paid $600 for the ability to say "We do have a paper in a peer reviewed journal!!!!!"...............

........... followed swiftly by "Neeener neeeener la la la la I'm not listening mary had a little lamb little lamb la la la" as an attempt is made to point out the inadequacies of their paper and it's publication.
 
R.Mackey said:
I received a reply from Mr. Alam to my reminder today, and it is not promising.

He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.
Click to expand...

How juvenile.

Sounds like Steven Jones might as well have stuck with the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
 
R.Mackey said:
I received a reply from Mr. Alam to my reminder today, and it is not promising.

He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.

I have informed him that, since the authors of dubious papers do not set the standards for journals, that his response is entirely inappropriate, and have reminded him that it is the editors who should be responding.

Thus far, only Mr. Alam has responded to anything, and it appears that he has no idea how real journals operate.

At this point, I am about 80 percent convinced that the Bentham Open Access Journals are merely a vanity publication. I do still have some doubt because there are a great many -- too many! -- professionals listed on their editorial board, and the few I've checked up on appear to be legitimate. I will be taking this discussion to them with or without Mr. Alam, and we will get to the bottom of this.
Click to expand...

Mr. Alam would probably have given your letter some professional scrutiny had a $600 money order been included. :eek:
 
Ultimately, if there is a sub-standard paper published in a journal, the buck should stop at the editor, specifically Prof. Jeng at Dundee in this case.

Incidentally, they have a bit of a huge list for their advisory board. Not tried counting them, but there's about an order of magnitude more advisers than there are papers actually published. Something isn't right about that...
 
R.Mackey said:
I received a reply from Mr. Alam to my reminder today, and it is not promising.

He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.

I have informed him that, since the authors of dubious papers do not set the standards for journals, that his response is entirely inappropriate, and have reminded him that it is the editors who should be responding.

Thus far, only Mr. Alam has responded to anything, and it appears that he has no idea how real journals operate.

At this point, I am about 80 percent convinced that the Bentham Open Access Journals are merely a vanity publication. I do still have some doubt because there are a great many -- too many! -- professionals listed on their editorial board, and the few I've checked up on appear to be legitimate. I will be taking this discussion to them with or without Mr. Alam, and we will get to the bottom of this.
Click to expand...

The legitimacy of the editorial board members does nothing to convince me this journal is legit. From what I have read, Bentham spammed out requests for them, offering, IIRC, a discount on the journal. As well, many of the "members" may have attached there names to plum up their own resumes.

No the proof is in the reply you received, and what reply you might receive from your latest query to them.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
I have been careful to include the word "respected" when talking about scientific journals. This journal looks like the wiki of scientific journals.

jod911.com <--- a RESPECTED journal. HEHE
 
I still say that a simple and direct way to test the peer review credentials of this journal would be if one of you qualified engineer types were to submit a letter written in your best technichal jargon about the unexplored structural properties of gingerbread or the superior fire resistance potential of chocolate bars.

C'mon! It'd be $600 well spent and you know it...
 
The saga continues...

Brainache said:
I still say that a simple and direct way to test the peer review credentials of this journal would be if one of you qualified engineer types were to submit a letter written in your best technichal jargon about the unexplored structural properties of gingerbread or the superior fire resistance potential of chocolate bars.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. There is a very real possibility that some people could lose tenure over something like this. The responsible way to deal with it is to bottle it as quickly and professionally as possible, and that is precisely what I am attempting to do.

===

Two replies last night, both of them from Mr. Alam. The first was a forwarded message from Dr. Steven Jones. As you can expect, he disagrees with my assessment. However, as I indicated above, this is an editorial matter, and there is absolutely no reason why a submitter should be responding or even weighing in on the issue. This is clear evidence of a broken peer review process.

The second reply, in Mr. Alam's own words, was a suggestion that I should instead be submitting my own paper in response. I have never before seen a scientific journal article whose abstract dealt with the editorial standards of the journal itself. Needless to say, this suggestion is unprofessional, and borderline insane.

Regardless of whether or not the paper ultimately gets retracted, we can now confidently state that the publishers are incompetent. This matter needs to be resolved independent of any concerns with Dr. Jones or his paper.

I have now informed the Editor in Chief, Dr. Dong-Sheng Jeng of the University of Dundee, of the situation. I remain hopeful that he was previously unaware of these problems and will take steps to rectify them. The alternative is most depressing.
 
R.Mackey said:
No, it is not. There is a very real possibility that some people could lose tenure over something like this. The responsible way to deal with it is to bottle it as quickly and professionally as possible, and that is precisely what I am attempting to do.

===
[...]
Click to expand...

OK. Sorry, I guess I just don't take these things seriously enough. I wouldn't want anyone to lose their job over something like this.

Wasn't there an example recently of some people hoaxing a journal with a load of post-modern/post-structural nonsense that caused quite a stir in academe? Wish I could recall the details.
 
R.Mackey said:
He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.
Click to expand...


Wow. Talk about ludicrous.


boloboffin said:
Mr. Alam would probably have given your letter some professional scrutiny had a $600 money order been included.
Click to expand...

R.Mackey said:
The second reply, in Mr. Alam's own words, was a suggestion that I should instead be submitting my own paper in response.
Click to expand...


Well, there you have it. Boloboffin nailed that one. ;)


R.Mackey said:
I have never before seen a scientific journal article whose abstract dealt with the editorial standards of the journal itself. Needless to say, this suggestion is unprofessional, and borderline insane.
Click to expand...


Indeed.


R.Mackey said:
Regardless of whether or not the paper ultimately gets retracted, we can now confidently state that the publishers are incompetent.
Click to expand...


And that is being charitable.
 
Brainache said:
Wasn't there an example recently of some people hoaxing a journal with a load of post-modern/post-structural nonsense that caused quite a stir in academe? Wish I could recall the details.
Click to expand...


You're probably thinking of the infamous Sokal Affair.

It is true that even the best journals screw up once in a while, and there have been several deliberate hoaxes that illustrate this. However, a good journal will make amends. So far, that is not happening here.

There's really no way to guarantee scientific accuracy without full replication of the result. I once took a biochemistry class where, every week, we were handed a selection of journal papers with instructions to analyze them critically, and debate them in discussion. Almost every one had fairly glaring problems. Most were vindicated by future results, but some were flat out wrong.

It happens. The whole reason one publishes is to come clean about one's findings, and seek verification from a broader community. Dr. Jones's paper is hardly transparent or useful, and that's why I oppose its publication.

I am also against hoaxes in almost every case. There are insufficient controls on a hoax, and it can come back to bite us later. Also, the only thing to be gained in this case is embarrassment of the publication itself. That appears inevitable at this point. I much prefer the constructive path, when available.
 
The Sokal affair it was.

OK, I agree that your way is probably the best way forward Mr Mackey.

I'd still like to see a scholarly dissertation on the structural uses of gingerbread tho'...:duck:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen

also details a computer generated paper that someone got accepted at a conference, and is sometimes mentioned alongside Sokal.

I once heard of a psychology professor, back in the days when ethics committees were no more than the insane gleam in the eyes of a soothsayer, who claimed to have been visited by God, and tried to form a cult out of his students, as an experiment.

He came clean eventually, but some of the students refused to believe his disavowal. They thought he was just testing their faith, and reports have it that the group still persists to this day - or at least did for a very long time after the event.

I have no idea whether the story is true. I'd like it to be, but irrespective, it illustrates nicely I think why hoaxes need to be kept in check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom