ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags peer review goalposts

Reply
Old 24th April 2008, 12:00 PM   #441
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
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.
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 by eeyore1954; 24th April 2008 at 12:00 PM.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2008, 12:38 PM   #442
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
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.
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.
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz
lapman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2008, 02:01 PM   #443
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by lapman View Post
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.
I think we should, yes. But 9/11 conspiracy advocates tend to develop sticky Caps Lock buttons when I do.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2008, 02:13 PM   #444
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
I think we should, yes. But 9/11 conspiracy advocates tend to develop sticky Caps Lock buttons when I do.
I visual I really didn't want.

BTW, what is the total time, including the spires?
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz
lapman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2008, 02:14 PM   #445
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by lapman View Post
I visual I really didn't want.

BTW, what is the total time, including the spires?
up to 30 sec?
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2008, 11:58 PM   #446
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 12:31 AM   #447
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 12:36 AM   #448
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
TM corruption vs MIC corruption
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 12:42 AM   #449
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
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.
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.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 02:34 AM   #450
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,413
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
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).
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
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 03:08 AM   #451
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Don't forget the Magnificent 7, or the original Seven Samurai.
Or the Seven Segals:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by Panoply_Prefect; 25th April 2008 at 03:12 AM.
Panoply_Prefect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 04:17 AM   #452
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.
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
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 05:55 AM   #453
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,045
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.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 06:20 AM   #454
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
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.
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 06:49 AM   #455
slyjoe
Graduate Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins
Posts: 1,442
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.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 07:40 AM   #456
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
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.
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):

Quote:
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.
Is there anyone who wants to suggest that the NSF is not respected?
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 07:46 AM   #457
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
In terms of animosity, isn't scientific peer-review anonymous? It is in my field (humanities).
__________________
- ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

Last edited by volatile; 25th April 2008 at 07:48 AM.
volatile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 08:21 AM   #458
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
In terms of animosity, isn't scientific peer-review anonymous? It is in my field (humanities).
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?"
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 08:32 AM   #459
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
That makes sense.
__________________
- ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.
volatile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 01:35 PM   #460
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,178
Originally Posted by lapman View Post
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.
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.
Mr.D is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 01:38 PM   #461
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,178
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
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,

You're assuming the size of the board on paper is meaningful and that the board actually has a real function.
Mr.D is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 01:45 PM   #462
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,178
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 02:14 PM   #463
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post
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.
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.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 10:12 PM   #464
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 12,464
The journal says this about their indexing:

Originally Posted by The Open Civil Engineering Journal
Indexed in
Google, Google Scholar
Engineering isn't my field, but doesn't this sound a bit fishy for a journal?
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2008, 03:49 AM   #465
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Any more replies from the magazine itself?
Panoply_Prefect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2008, 11:34 PM   #466
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2008, 11:46 PM   #467
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,764
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.
They have not forwarded the promised comments, after I wrote.

Classic open loop, we got the money; reader beware.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 01:38 AM   #468
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
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.
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 05:32 AM   #469
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.
How juvenile.

Sounds like Steven Jones might as well have stuck with the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 05:46 AM   #470
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.
Mr. Alam would probably have given your letter some professional scrutiny had a $600 money order been included.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 12:08 PM   #471
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
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...
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 12:41 PM   #472
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.
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 by T.A.M.; 30th April 2008 at 12:42 PM.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 04:25 PM   #473
FactCheck
Muse
 
FactCheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 619
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
__________________
"Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!" - Groucho Marks
"The A.D.L. is the scum of the earth."... "You aren't going to use that last line out of context, are you?" - Alex Jones
http://www.debunking911.com Try the new POWER Debunker search engine!
http://www.jod911.com
FactCheck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 06:59 PM   #474
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,731
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...
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 07:17 PM   #475
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
The saga continues...

Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 07:31 PM   #476
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,731
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.

===
[...]
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.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 07:37 PM   #477
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,414
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.

Wow. Talk about ludicrous.


Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
Mr. Alam would probably have given your letter some professional scrutiny had a $600 money order been included.
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
The second reply, in Mr. Alam's own words, was a suggestion that I should instead be submitting my own paper in response.

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


Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.

Indeed.


Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Regardless of whether or not the paper ultimately gets retracted, we can now confidently state that the publishers are incompetent.

And that is being charitable.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 08:10 PM   #478
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
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.

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.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 08:18 PM   #479
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,731
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'...
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2008, 08:37 PM   #480
Confuseling
Irreligious fanatic
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,243
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.
__________________
Drs_Res: "P.S. You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to be listened to." link


Join my petition. Fight the vile slurp spider scourge. Harass Darat. Can you afford not to?
Confuseling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.