IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 26th July 2011, 06:17 PM   #1
SkepticOfLies
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 62
Just out of curiosity...

...Exactly how many peer reviewed papers have the Truth Movement produced? Plus, how many of them were peer reviewed at the Bentham Open, compared to how many that were peer reviewed by other truthers? Have they ever produced something that made skeptic's heart jump like "Oh crap they finally got peer reviewed", or has it all been laughably peer reviewed, and done improperly? Just out of curiosity.
SkepticOfLies 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 26th July 2011, 07:02 PM   #2
Dayan81
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 450
Conspiracy theorists tend to have little regard for science in general, let alone the peer-review process.
Dayan81 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 26th July 2011, 09:34 PM   #3
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by SkepticOfLies View Post
Just out of curiosity.
A tiny bit of research would answer this!
There is no spoon!
Dog Town 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 26th July 2011, 10:07 PM   #4
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
zero
dtugg 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 26th July 2011, 10:14 PM   #5
SkepticOfLies
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Dog Town View Post
A tiny bit of research would answer this!
I know I was just lazy at the time I made this thread, my apologies.
I did a bit more research on the Bentham Open and Jones Paper on nano-thermite, and didn't really find too much new.
One thing that I did find that was new though (to me anyway, the information is dated), is a story about a bogus article written by someone who sent it to the Bentham Open to see if it would go through the "peer review" process anyway, it did.
Does this not concern Truthers who believe in the credibility of the nano-thermite paper?


What I was aware of before...


Bentham Editor Resigns over Steven Jones' Paper:

They have printed the article without my authorization...I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them - Says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France .


What I wasn't aware of...

Here is a section of the article that was purposely written to make no sense:

"In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9]."

They wrote this back to the author:

"This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication."

They later retracted the manuscript after seeing the obvious errors sometime after, but the damage had already been done to their credibility as far as their peer review process is concerned.

This is all the Bentham Open had to say:

"I’m afraid that we have to retract this article. We have discovered several errors in the manuscript which question both the validity of the study and the results."


The author who wrote the article blogged about it afterwards:

"...What is surprising is that the assistant manager claimed that the article went through peer-review although there is no evidence that it actually did. Anyone with English proficiency — with or without a degree in computer science — would recognize that this manuscript makes absolutely no sense. "

Source: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2...e-for-dollars/

Do any truthers who follow Dr. Jones' findings have anything to say about this in defense?
SkepticOfLies 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

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 03:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.