[Merged]Peer-reviewed technical paper to appear in mainstream journal - Page 12

eeyore1954 · 24th April 2008, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by tanabear

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.

lapman · 24th April 2008, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

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.

boloboffin · 24th April 2008, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by lapman

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.

lapman · 24th April 2008, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

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?

DC · 24th April 2008, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by lapman

I visual I really didn't want.

BTW, what is the total time, including the spires?

up to 30 sec?

R.Mackey · 24th April 2008, 11:58 PM

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.

Sizzler · 25th April 2008, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

DC · 25th April 2008, 12:36 AM

TM corruption vs MIC corruption

R.Mackey · 25th April 2008, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

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.

Dave Rogers · 25th April 2008, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

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

Panoply_Prefect · 25th April 2008, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by JamesB

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

T.A.M. · 25th April 2008, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

eeyore1954 · 25th April 2008, 05:55 AM

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.

Apollo20 · 25th April 2008, 06:20 AM

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.

slyjoe · 25th April 2008, 06:49 AM

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.

drkitten · 25th April 2008, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

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?

volatile · 25th April 2008, 07:46 AM

In terms of animosity, isn't scientific peer-review anonymous? It is in my field (humanities).

drkitten · 25th April 2008, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by volatile

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?"

volatile · 25th April 2008, 08:32 AM

That makes sense.

Mr.D · 25th April 2008, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by lapman

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 · 25th April 2008, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

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 · 25th April 2008, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

drkitten · 25th April 2008, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Mr.D

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.

timhau · 25th April 2008, 10:12 PM

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?

Panoply_Prefect · 29th April 2008, 03:49 AM

Any more replies from the magazine itself?

R.Mackey · 29th April 2008, 11:34 PM

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.

beachnut · 29th April 2008, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

uk_dave · 30th April 2008, 01:38 AM

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.

CHF · 30th April 2008, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

boloboffin · 30th April 2008, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

Spud1k · 30th April 2008, 12:08 PM

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...

T.A.M. · 30th April 2008, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

FactCheck · 30th April 2008, 04:25 PM

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

Brainache · 30th April 2008, 06:59 PM

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...

R.Mackey · 30th April 2008, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Brainache

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.

Brainache · 30th April 2008, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

LashL · 30th April 2008, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

Wow. Talk about ludicrous.

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Mr. Alam would probably have given your letter some professional scrutiny had a $600 money order been included.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

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

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.

R.Mackey · 30th April 2008, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Brainache

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.

Brainache · 30th April 2008, 08:18 PM

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'...

Confuseling · 30th April 2008, 08:37 PM

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.

24th April 2008, 12:00 PM	#441
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,811	Originally Posted by tanabear 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.
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,811	Last edited by eeyore1954; 24th April 2008 at 12:00 PM.

24th April 2008, 12:38 PM	#442
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	Originally Posted by beachnut 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.
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	__________________ 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

24th April 2008, 02:01 PM	#443
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Originally Posted by lapman 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 Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

24th April 2008, 02:13 PM	#444
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	Originally Posted by boloboffin 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?
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	__________________ 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

24th April 2008, 02:14 PM	#445
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064	Originally Posted by lapman I visual I really didn't want. BTW, what is the total time, including the spires? up to 30 sec?
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064

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 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854

25th April 2008, 12:31 AM	#447
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

25th April 2008, 12:36 AM	#448
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064	TM corruption vs MIC corruption
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064

25th April 2008, 12:42 AM	#449
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854	Originally Posted by Sizzler 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 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854

25th April 2008, 02:34 AM	#450
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 34,074	Originally Posted by Sizzler 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
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

25th April 2008, 04:17 AM	#452
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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

25th April 2008, 05:55 AM	#453
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,811	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 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,811

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 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,425

25th April 2008, 06:49 AM	#455
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,600	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

25th April 2008, 07:40 AM	#456
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by Apollo20 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?

25th April 2008, 07:46 AM	#457
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman 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.

25th April 2008, 08:21 AM	#458
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by volatile 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?"

25th April 2008, 08:32 AM	#459
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman 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'.

25th April 2008, 01:35 PM	#460
Mr.D Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,178	Originally Posted by lapman 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.

25th April 2008, 01:38 PM	#461
Mr.D Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,178	Originally Posted by Sizzler 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.

25th April 2008, 01:45 PM	#462
Mr.D Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,178	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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.

25th April 2008, 02:14 PM	#463
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by Mr.D 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.

25th April 2008, 10:12 PM	#464
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I? Posts: 15,145	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

29th April 2008, 03:49 AM	#465
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	Any more replies from the magazine itself?

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 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854

29th April 2008, 11:46 PM	#467
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,120	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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.

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 Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 8,154

30th April 2008, 05:32 AM	#469
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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 Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871

30th April 2008, 05:46 AM	#470
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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 Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

30th April 2008, 12:08 PM	#471
Spud1k +5 Goatee of Pedantry 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...

30th April 2008, 12:41 PM	#472
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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.

30th April 2008, 04:25 PM	#473
FactCheck Muse 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
FactCheck Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 619	__________________ "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

30th April 2008, 06:59 PM	#474
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Canberra Posts: 17,510	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...

30th April 2008, 07:17 PM	#475
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854	The saga continues... Originally Posted by Brainache 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 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854

30th April 2008, 07:31 PM	#476
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Canberra Posts: 17,510	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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.