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.
Reply
Old 22nd August 2009, 07:24 PM   #1
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
peer review info

So if Bentham charges a fee to be published, how do normals journal work?

Im asking because I know theres lots of scientists in here
Edx 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 22nd August 2009, 07:27 PM   #2
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Typically in a normal journal, you submit your work, a group of "peer reviewers" (typically scientists in a similar area with sound credentials) read your work and insure it meets certain basic acceptable standards, and then if you are lucky, they publish your paper.

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 22nd August 2009, 07:30 PM   #3
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Okay, Im saying how normal is it that the author has to pay the journal money, is it only "open access" Bentham style that does that?

What fees does that author have to pay in normal journals? Is it only if they want to try and submit again after it gets rejected?
Edx 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 22nd August 2009, 07:33 PM   #4
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Okay, Im saying how normal is it that the author has to pay the journal money, is it only "open access" Bentham style that does that?

What fees does that author have to pay in normal journals? Is it only if they want to try and submit again after it gets rejected?
As far as I know (I have been part of studies that have been published, but I have not been the one to submit) there are no fees involved in the submission to a standard journal.

Open access journals, of which there are some good ones, often use such Fees. As a result, they are OFTEN used by scientists who cannot get their papers published in standard journals, as a means to get their work "out there".

There are at least 2 good threads in the JREF archives/thread lists on Bentham, and a lot of good info on this entire thing within them.

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 22nd August 2009, 08:07 PM   #5
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
This is old ground. You might try this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=89082

It is very rare for journals to charge for peer review and publication. Most of them recover revenue through membership fees and reprint costs. There are a few legitimate journals that do, but the proper journals for this particular topic -- say JOM or any of the ASCE publications -- do not.
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 22nd August 2009, 08:10 PM   #6
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Cheers Ryan. Truthers really are wrong about everything, I do have to wonder who wins in that game Creationists or Truthers.
Edx 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 22nd August 2009, 08:11 PM   #7
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,094
Peer--> a person who is of equal standing with another in a group

In this case (9/11 building collapses), the group is engineers and scientists who deal with failures, strength of mat3erials, and building codes and construction.

Review -->evaluated by experts in appropriate fields
Most of the hypotheses presented on these fora have been reviewed by experts in the field, and have been, in the true sense of the phrase, "peer reviewed"
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 22nd August 2009, 08:12 PM   #8
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
btw a truther on another board is claiming that every single journal has some form of an entry fee.

I take it this is false as well since you said that most journals dont charge?
Edx 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 22nd August 2009, 08:15 PM   #9
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
It's completely false. That's nothing but a simple lie.

Early this year, I participated as a peer reviewer for an ASCE journal. I'm not even a member of the ASCE, I've never published there, and I've never gone to an ASCE conference. I wasn't paid for being a reviewer, either. I was asked because I did and published related work in the past. I also took it seriously. But no money changed hands.

This is how it works in the real world.
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 22nd August 2009, 08:16 PM   #10
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,530
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
btw a truther on another board is claiming that every single journal has some form of an entry fee.

I take it this is false as well since you said that most journals dont charge?
Yes, that is false. Speaking from my own area of expertise, for instance, no legitimate law journal (and there are many) charges "entry fees" for submissions. Rather, legitimate journals seek out submissions by qualified parties and enlist the assistance of legitimate experts in the relevant areas of law to serve as peer reviewers in order to ensure that the content that is ultimately published (which is a very small percentage of that which is submitted) is sound, rational, scholarly, based on legitimate sources, properly researched, fundamentally solid, and legitimately defensible, even if it is controversial, etc. (as matters of law are prone to be, perhaps more so than matters of science).

This is entirely different than the process at Bentham, where all one needs is to send a cheque with any lamebrained crap that one wishes to have published, and where Bentham sends out mass mailings to people to ask them to become 'reviewers' on subjects in which they have no expertise, etc.

ETA: Simulposted with R.Mackey.

Last edited by LashL; 22nd August 2009 at 08:32 PM.
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 22nd August 2009, 08:18 PM   #11
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
I cant wait to see what he comes back with then.

I love it when they make such horrendously wrong statements.
Edx 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 22nd August 2009, 08:36 PM   #12
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,094
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
It's completely false. That's nothing but a simple lie.

Early this year, I participated as a peer reviewer for an ASCE journal. I'm not even a member of the ASCE, I've never published there, and I've never gone to an ASCE conference. I wasn't paid for being a reviewer, either. I was asked because I did and published related work in the past. I also took it seriously. But no money changed hands.

This is how it works in the real world.
Last thing I had published (Industry is soo boring) was in "The Proceedings of the 7th International Modal Analysis Conference" in 1989.
Didn't cost a thing
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 22nd August 2009, 09:48 PM   #13
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
edx.

I have written 3 peer reviewed journal articles in 3 different fields (psychology, education and history). I NEVER had to pay for ANY of the articles. (beyond the cost of mailing it to the journals)

The average time it took from submission to publication was between 6 months and a year.

The process is very straightforward.
1. submit the manuscript to the journal
2. they either
A. send it out to peer reviewers
B. reject it outright.

if A then
3. the peer reviewers spend time reviewing the article and return it to the journal with
A. accept as written
B. Accept, but needs minor revisions/changes (or you need to defend your position)
C. conditionally accept, but needs major revisions
D. Reject

4 the publishing entity sends you back your manuscript with the peer reviewers comments and suggestions.
5. you make the changes and resubmit.

The process repeats itself until you get it through the peer review and it is published.

In a REAL peer review journal you are NOT charged to submit, nor for them to publish your work (usually).

I can't think of ANY real respected tier one journal which charges a publication fee.
TruthersLie 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 22nd August 2009, 10:24 PM   #14
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Thanks guys This is what I thought but needed to check
Edx 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 23rd August 2009, 12:53 AM   #15
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
I would recommend reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_journal
deep 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 23rd August 2009, 12:58 AM   #16
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: 12,760
In the case of Bentham, this Wikipedia page is also relevant.
__________________
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 23rd August 2009, 01:00 AM   #17
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,212
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
I would recommend reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_journal

Why?
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd 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 23rd August 2009, 01:39 AM   #18
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
I would recommend reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_journal
In the case of Bentham or any twoof article which has been "published" in one of the open access journals I recommend that you read these

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2...-worse-at.html

a much better analysis of BENTHAM (the journal of twoof choice).

Try again Deep...
This ranks up there with NYCCANT.
TruthersLie 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 23rd August 2009, 09:43 AM   #19
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
One society I'm associated with is starting up an Open Access journal.

It will be free of charge. Again, the costs will be handled through membership and conference fees. I won't have it any other way, after the foul taste left behind by Bentham.
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 23rd August 2009, 10:13 AM   #20
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
edx.

I have written 3 peer reviewed journal articles in 3 different fields (psychology, education and history). I NEVER had to pay for ANY of the articles. (beyond the cost of mailing it to the journals)

The average time it took from submission to publication was between 6 months and a year.

The process is very straightforward.
1. submit the manuscript to the journal
2. they either
A. send it out to peer reviewers
B. reject it outright.

if A then
3. the peer reviewers spend time reviewing the article and return it to the journal with
A. accept as written
B. Accept, but needs minor revisions/changes (or you need to defend your position)
C. conditionally accept, but needs major revisions
D. Reject

4 the publishing entity sends you back your manuscript with the peer reviewers comments and suggestions.
5. you make the changes and resubmit.

The process repeats itself until you get it through the peer review and it is published.

In a REAL peer review journal you are NOT charged to submit, nor for them to publish your work (usually).

I can't think of ANY real respected tier one journal which charges a publication fee.
This is exactly my experience as well. I have never paid fees to publish my research. I have also acted as a reviewer for a peer-review journal. I was not compensated financially.

Publishing in journals is generally considered the 'work' of university professors. While there is nothing wrong with open access journals, the point is that they have a much lower standard of entry than peer-review journals. Pretty much the only standard for entry into such venues is whether or not the article is written appropriately. This does not necessarily mean the research is poor quality, but if fee-based open access journals are the only venues that will publish your research, there is almost certainly a problem.

On the other hand, Dr. Jones does have a strong publication record. His CV from the Brigham Young website
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...itaApril09.htm
seems to show that earlier in his carrer, when he was doing more convention research, he made a clear distinction between open access and peer-review. The only research he has published in open access journals is his 911 work.

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 23rd August 2009 at 10:16 AM.
Scott Sommers 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 23rd August 2009, 10:38 AM   #21
Astute Perspicuous
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 139
You Asked For Peer Review...You Got It.

A couple of years ago I remember a gaggle of you so-called "debunkers" were yapping on and on and on about peer review.

So, they give you a peer reviewed scientific study about nano-thermite.

Now, you try and pick apart the peer review process, the scientists involved, and the legitimacy of the peer review itself.

Ha...

Totally predictable reaction.

Now think hard, but try not to hurt your lil ole brains on a thought, ok.

You are being squeezed between science and common sense.
Astute Perspicuous 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 23rd August 2009, 10:39 AM   #22
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Whatever. So when do the criminal trials begin?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 23rd August 2009, 10:43 AM   #23
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,609
Originally Posted by Astute Perspicuous View Post
A couple of years ago I remember a gaggle of you so-called "debunkers" were yapping on and on and on about peer review.

So, they give you a peer reviewed scientific study about nano-thermite.

Now, you try and pick apart the peer review process, the scientists involved, and the legitimacy of the peer review itself.

Ha...

Totally predictable reaction.

Now think hard, but try not to hurt your lil ole brains on a thought, ok.

You are being squeezed between science and common sense.
I'm sorry, but are you talking about vanity publishing, which has already been dealt with exhaustively here, or do you have something else in mind?
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect 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 23rd August 2009, 10:46 AM   #24
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 14,959
Did this paper explain how nano-thermite might have been used on 9/11/2001 ?
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger 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 23rd August 2009, 10:49 AM   #25
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
You "researchers" might want to learn about the search function. It's been handled here exhaustively.

Not only are those papers not peer-reviewed, they are also utter nonsense. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of discussion on this topic.
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 23rd August 2009, 10:56 AM   #26
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: 12,760
Damn, they're on to us. I never thought they'd figure out that vanity publishing + whining and temper tantrums equals scientific respectability.
__________________
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 23rd August 2009, 10:59 AM   #27
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by Astute Perspicuous View Post
A couple of years ago I remember a gaggle of you so-called "debunkers" were yapping on and on and on about peer review.

So, they give you a peer reviewed scientific study about nano-thermite.

Now, you try and pick apart the peer review process, the scientists involved, and the legitimacy of the peer review itself.

Ha...

Totally predictable reaction.

Now think hard, but try not to hurt your lil ole brains on a thought, ok.

You are being squeezed between science and common sense.
You have failed in your information; These papers you speak of have not been peer reviewed. Now if you are so inclined to believe they have been reviewed, do you know who reviewed them?
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo
MIKILLINI 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 23rd August 2009, 11:01 AM   #28
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by Astute Perspicuous View Post
Now, you try and pick apart the peer review process, the scientists involved, and the legitimacy of the peer review itself.
And the paper itself, don't leave that out.
MikeW 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 23rd August 2009, 11:05 AM   #29
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
I don't know who you are or what kind of background you have. I certainly was not one of those people who "A couple of years ago" you remember "yapping on and on and on about peer review".

I presume you are not a scientist or involved in any capacity with the international research community, so I'll try to explain this as clearly as I can. Dr. Steven Jones has a long publication record.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...itaApril09.htm
The only articles he has published in an open access journal are those related to his work on 911 and thermite. This is significant because of the nature of publication in these journals.

The term 'peer-review' is vague. I have published articles in open access journals that called themselves 'peer review' which were recieved and published without change - complete with typos and other mistakes I made in the original submission. By this I mean their peer review process was not very complete. It is not clear to me at all that anyone even read my article before it was published. In fact, I am currently in a dispute with this journal to get them to change some very important errors, and even the editor I am in contact with with does not seem to be able to get these changes made.

Publication in an open access journal is not really a big deal. In my field, such journals are considered, without exception, to be third-tier. This does not make them bad or poor quality. What it does mean is that their results may not be reproducible with the same degree of assurance you would find in top journals, such as those listed in the SCI, etc
http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cg...sults.cgi?PC=K

Given that the use of thermite is not consistant with other facts related to 911, for Jone's article to be meaningful, it would have to reviewed at a higher level than an open access peer review journal. Otherwise, it just looks like it got accepted and published via a process similar to my situation.

Frankly, the fact that he has not presented findings of this sort at an academic conference strikes me as highly unusual, particualry since he and Gage show no relucantce to speak about them to an uneducated audience. It would appear he is afraid of speaking about these results to an expert audience.

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 23rd August 2009 at 11:07 AM.
Scott Sommers 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 23rd August 2009, 11:11 AM   #30
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by Astute Perspicuous View Post
A couple of years ago I remember a gaggle of you so-called "debunkers" were yapping on and on and on about peer review.

So, they give you a peer reviewed scientific study about nano-thermite.

Now, you try and pick apart the peer review process, the scientists involved, and the legitimacy of the peer review itself.

Ha...

Totally predictable reaction.

Now think hard, but try not to hurt your lil ole brains on a thought, ok.

You are being squeezed between science and common sense.

Obviously you don't think we know that the whole nano-thermite paper was a fraud.

1) nano-thermite doesn't exist beyond small quantities in labs and didn't exist at all in 2001.

2) The chain of custody of these samples is ridiculous and suspicious.

3) Bentham is nothing but a pay for publishing scheme that doesn't do any kind of proper peer review. This was proven beyond a doubt when they published a submitted fake paper of jibberish as soon as they got their cash.

4) Stephen Jones is a known fraud known for making crazy claims and dishonesty.

It doesn't take much of an examination, common sense or thought to clearly see that what we got here was a fraud and a scam.
__________________
I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth".

Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.

Last edited by The Platypus; 23rd August 2009 at 11:28 AM.
The Platypus 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 23rd August 2009, 11:28 AM   #31
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,258
Look, back when a lot of us over at SLC brought up the fact that we'd like to see Jones submit his work to peer review, it never occurred to us that we'd need to put the term "legitimate" in front of it. Speaking for myself, I simply thought that was self evident. I obviously didn't know truthers well enough back then.

Ersatz peer review is insufficient. Go do a search on Bentham in this forum, then address the problems. And understand that merely presenting a superficial parody of peer review is not a substitute for the real thing.

And yes, we're still waiting for some legitimately peer reviewed science from the so-called "Truth" movement. The only real science so far has been from non-conspiratorial sources. Like Lu's and Jiang's steel study (University of Tsinghhua). Or Lamont, Lane, Flint, and Usmani's study on actual steel structures (as opposed to individual elements, like columns) performance in fire. Etc.

While we're at it, since over the years I've learned that you need to be very specific when discussing matters with truthers, I have one more requirement regarding research. Yes, this too you'd think would go without saying, but again, we're talking truthers here... anyway: If Jones or anyone else attempts to conduct real research and submit it to legitimate journals, please ensure that the research this time around is actually accurate. For reference, view past threads about the last Bentham paper; when people outside the relevant disciplines can spot the glaring mistakes, the paper has serious, fundamental problems. Not only should the peer review process be legitimate, but little things we've come to expect, such as the data actually supporting the conclusion, should also be done (no, that wasn't the case with the Harrit, Jones, et. al. work; the conclusions offered were most definitely contradicted by the data). It's bad form for data to not support the conclusion. It's necessary that it does so from here on out.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 23rd August 2009 at 11:30 AM. Reason: typo
ElMondoHummus 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 23rd August 2009, 11:35 AM   #32
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan View Post
snip

On the other hand, Dr. Jones does have a strong publication record. His CV from the Brigham Young website
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...itaApril09.htm
seems to show that earlier in his carrer, when he was doing more convention research, he made a clear distinction between open access and peer-review. The only research he has published in open access journals is his 911 work.
And that ALL by itself should tell you LOADS about the academic validity (or lack thereof) of any Jones/twoof "papers" (snicker).
TruthersLie 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 23rd August 2009, 11:38 AM   #33
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,258
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
btw a truther on another board is claiming that every single journal has some form of an entry fee.

I take it this is false as well since you said that most journals dont charge?
Everyone else has already answered this quite well, so I'm going to highlight something that's gone unsaid in this thread: The problem with Bentham isn't necessarily that you have to pay to publish. Yes, that's an issue, but it's not the core one. Rather, the issue is the parody of peer review that Bentham Open Access has chosen to follow. Again, see previous threads here, but people's disparagement of this vanity publication would not be so harsh if some legitimate review had occurred.

Furthermore, the other half of the core problem with the Harrit, Jones, etc. paper is the paper itself. The conclusions drawn are not supported by the data; view Sunstealer's posts on the matter for details. The point here is that while we certainly have been quite disparaging of vanity publishing, it's at best a peripheral problem. The inaccuracy of the paper itself, combined with the sloppyness of the supposed review process, is the central problem. Paying to publish wouldn't be a big deal at all if the paper itself as well as the review process weren't so fundamentally flawed.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 23rd August 2009, 11:42 AM   #34
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,258
Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan View Post
On the other hand, Dr. Jones does have a strong publication record. His CV from the Brigham Young website
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...itaApril09.htm
seems to show that earlier in his carrer, when he was doing more convention research, he made a clear distinction between open access and peer-review. The only research he has published in open access journals is his 911 work.
Before he published in Bentham, many of us discussed this over at the ScrewLooseChange blog back in '06/'07. You might get away with forgiving anyone else in the so-called "Truth" movement for not understanding legitimate review, but Jones cannot escape judgement on this. He knows what real peer review is. Which is why I have doubt that he genuinely believes in what he's publishing: The fact that he can't get the work accepted by real publications has got to tell him that there's something wrong there. Other conspiracy peddlers may not know this, but Jones certainly must realize it.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 23rd August 2009, 11:44 AM   #35
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by Astute Perspicuous View Post
A couple of years ago I remember a gaggle of you so-called "debunkers" were yapping on and on and on about peer review.
OH look kids... another run by twoofing.

Yup, it should be EASY to get a real peer review from a real journal. I have 3 peer reviewed journal articles on my CV. And I didn't have to pay for any of them twoof.

Quote:
So, they give you a peer reviewed scientific study about nano-thermite.
Really? Name one. I'll wait.
OH you are trying to pass off the craptacular Bentham Open Chemical Physics journal "article" (snicker). Really? Wow.

The same journal where the head editor QUIT IN A HUFF because she NEVER saw the "paper" (snicker). What kind of journal publishes a paper w/out the head editor EVER SEEING IT? Huh? Please find me an example of any respected engineering journal doing that.

Or the same publishing house trying to publish a completely gibberish paper, getting called on it and their editor quiting in disgust.

Now twoof, I know with your lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills it is hard... but try to focus (maybe put down the bong just long enough to go here and READ and try to understand what it says)

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2...-worse-at.html

Quote:
Now, you try and pick apart the peer review process, the scientists involved, and the legitimacy of the peer review itself.
See twoof, if you ever made it through even high school science classes you would (or should) know the difference between a vanity journal and a real respected journal.

What a damning indictment of public education you have turned out to be.

Quote:
Ha...

Totally predictable reaction.
wow twoof... you are REALLLLLY late to this bentham craptacular party... maybe it shows your excellend research skills... 8 months late... whew... try the search function above. Look up Jones nanothermite and sunstealer. Oops... he found PAINT.

ROFLMAO.

Poor ignorant twoofs. How I love them.

Last edited by TruthersLie; 23rd August 2009 at 11:47 AM.
TruthersLie 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 23rd August 2009, 11:48 AM   #36
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,683
My advisor and I are are in the process of trying to get a paper published in one of the physics journals. He has mentioned that sometimes there is a fee for figures printed in color, and that we have to make sure our figures can be deciphered if they are black and white, since we don't have funding to pay for color plots.
sylvan8798 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 23rd August 2009, 11:57 AM   #37
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,131
I'll usually take articles written by Jones, Griffin et al and put through my pier review process: After the first instance of free fall, molten steel or CD read in the document, it goes straight into the bay. The local fishermen are in favor of this because it causes the bottom feeders to really start biting.
__________________
AJM8125 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 23rd August 2009, 12:10 PM   #38
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Personally I just use the twoof "papers" (snicker) for drinking games.
every time they mention a vast conspiracy 1 shot
thermite 1 shot
nanothermite 1 shot
da jooooooz did it 3 shots
CD hushaboom 1 shot
pentagon flyover 2 shots
no debris at the pentagon 1 shot
no wreckage at shanksville 1 shot
TruthersLie 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 23rd August 2009, 12:14 PM   #39
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Before he published in Bentham, many of us discussed this over at the ScrewLooseChange blog back in '06/'07. You might get away with forgiving anyone else in the so-called "Truth" movement for not understanding legitimate review, but Jones cannot escape judgement on this. He knows what real peer review is. Which is why I have doubt that he genuinely believes in what he's publishing: The fact that he can't get the work accepted by real publications has got to tell him that there's something wrong there. Other conspiracy peddlers may not know this, but Jones certainly must realize it.
Why would he be doing this? Is he loosing it? I don't perceive the cold fusion stuff as really that bad. He wasn't dismissed or the object of open ridicule by his colleagues. He still could have retired in relatively high regard. Now, he's given up all of this for the adoration of the marginal mentally ill.
Scott Sommers 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 23rd August 2009, 12:22 PM   #40
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,749
Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
OH look kids... another run by twoofing.

This is pretty much his MO nowadays: Find all threads started by Astute Perspicuous
Cl1mh4224rd 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 04:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.