peer review.

[furrod]

I'm doing a little 9/11 research and I had a few questions.

What exactly is peer review?

Is there a specific process that must be followed?

Is there a list of 9/11 engineering papers that have been submitted for peer review?

Are there any truther papers that have been submitted?

Is just submitting a paper for peer review sufficient reason to assume it's credibility or does it need to go through some sort of back and forth process between other engineers?

Are there any "fake" ways to claim peer reviewed?

 

[kookbreaker]

I'm doing a little 9/11 research and I had a few questions.

What exactly is peer review?

Peer review is when you submit a paper to anonymous people with proper credentials to review your work and check it for errors. Usually this is done with a reputable publication

Is there a specific process that must be followed?

Not entirely, there are some standards but its not like there's an ISO procedure. In any case, submission should be made to the proper jounral

Is there a list of 9/11 engineering papers that have been submitted for peer review?

Yes. There should be several. I'll have to leave it to others as I do not have the list handy.

Are there any truther papers that have been submitted?

Submitted? We may never be certain. Dr. Jones claims to have submitted his 'paper' to repuatble journals and they rejected it. If this is true, they had very good reason for doing so as it is full of errors a child could spot. If it is not true it is an example of a troofer telling tales.

Is just submitting a paper for peer review sufficient reason to assume it's credibility or does it need to go through some sort of back and forth process between other engineers?

Submission alone is not cause for reputability. Long before the truth movement many science, math and engineering journals have been beset by cranks submitting papers.

Are there any "fake" ways to claim peer reviewed?

Making your own journal with suspect, cause-friendly peers can fool a few people. The 'Journal of 911 studies' is a perfect example of phoney peer review, with theologists reviewing engineering claims and worse.

 

[Gravy]

Peer review.

Pee-er review (courtesy JREF forum member triterope):

jurinal (n.) - A collection of scientific papers of such low quality that it shouldn't be read, but given to a vagrant for use as a travel toilet. Example: "Jurinal of 9-11 Studies."

peer review (n. or v.) - Confirming the quality of a scientific study by looking narrowly at the name of the author, and making sure that person believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Example: "Steven Jones has published many peer reviewed papers." Alt. Usage: After a jurinal has been given to a vagrant, this term is pronounced "pee-er review," and refers to a different form of expression.

 

[R.Mackey]

Peer review is a process in which scientific ideas are evaluated by an independent body of experts. There is no specific method cast-in-stone, but some of the more common features are these:

• A preset list of academic standards required for submission, such as correct attribution of sources, absence of advertising, and absence of personal politics
• Independence of reviewers from both publisher and submitter
• Anonymity of reviewers
• Balanced panel of reviewers, from as large a pool as possible
• Mediated discussion between reviewer and submitter, i.e. questions and requests for revision, archived

A peer-reviewed paper is generally understood to be of higher quality because (a) it's been looked over by independent experts, and (b) the fact that the paper is ready for independent review reflects its maturity and cohesion. However, this is not always the case. Once in a while a flawed paper will slip through, and some excellent whitepapers are never submitted for peer review or are not approved for reasons having nothing to do with its merit (e.g. backlog of a particular publication).

There are other forms of peer review. As we speak, I am personally involved in a peer review of technology proposals, for instance. There are also engineering reviews (so-called NAR or Non-Advocate Reviews) that are similar, but not anonymous, essentially a face-to-face board of inquiry.

Check Gravy's site for a list of relevant peer-reviewed articles. It's quite long. (ETA: Scroll to the bottom of this page for a list.)

I don't know whether any "conspiracy theorist" has submitted a paper or not. I am almost 100% certain that none has ever been published. The journals do not report on paper rejections, as this would compromise standards of the review.

There are ways to "fake" peer-review, but only to the uninformed. An example is the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, which has its editorial staff perform many reviews, does not keep one article anonymous from another (allowing rebuttals to be penned by its board coincident with the articles they dislike), and keeps a highly selective list of other reviewers determined by their politics rather than their expertise. Nobody in the legitimate sciences is fooled by the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies, but it is difficult for non-technical individuals to tell the difference.

 

[furrod]

Is this paper submitted for peer review?
If so, when do you know if the paper has been generally accepted or rejected by the authors peers?

Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?
Zden¡ek P. Ba¡zant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

 

[R.Mackey]

That paper has been submitted, but is still under review to the best of my knowledge.

The review process can take months, or even years, depending on the journal. There's nothing unusual about this paper. ETA: Keep in mind that reviewers are usually volunteers, and have many other things to do with their time!

Having read it myself, I expect it to be published without substantial changes.

 

[beachnut]

There are ways to "fake" peer-review, but only to the uninformed. An example is the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, which has its editorial staff perform many reviews, does not keep one article anonymous from another (allowing rebuttals to be penned by its board coincident with the articles they dislike), and keeps a highly selective list of other reviewers determined by their politics rather than their expertise. Nobody in the legitimate sciences is fooled by the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies, but it is difficult for non-technical individuals to tell the difference.

Excellent information and points on the http://stj911.org/journal.html , journal of woo.

 

[CHF]

Dr. Jones claims to have submitted his 'paper' to repuatble journals and they rejected it.

Gee I wonder why. It's gotta be pretty crappy to get rejected at the submission stage!

I actually wish they had accepted his paper. It would have been handed back to him covered in red ink with no room for "they turned it down cuz they're afraid" which is, no doubt, the twoofer spin.

 

[R.Mackey]

They very well may have. Remember that "accepted" means "accepted for publication," not merely that they didn't refuse to take it out of the mailbox.

I would speculate that any real journal would return Dr. Jones's paper without comment, but they may have wasted time trying to correct it. Remember, voluteers, large backlog -- journals see crackpot papers all the time, and usually just ignore them.

 

[Brainster]

It means that Kevin Ryan reviewed it while sitting here:

 

[Apollo20]

As someone who started publishing in 1975, I can tell you that some very bad papers pass so-called peer review, while others are rejected for strange, (not always technical), reasons.

Professors can be VERY competitive!

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....

The same thing has happened in art and music when great works were rejected by the appropriate "Academy".

 

[William Rea]

As someone who started publishing in 1975, I can tell you that some very bad papers pass so-called peer review, while others are rejected for strange, (not always technical), reasons.

Professors can be VERY competitive!

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....

The same thing has happened in art and music when great works were rejected by the appropriate "Academy".

Absolutely, I raised this topic in another thread to gauge what the perception of "peer review" is compared to the reality. I think saying something has been "peer reviewed" might offer it marginally more credibility but it is actual independent verification by the community after publication that matters.

I had my illusions about this shattered by a poster on a politics forum about 5 years ago. He routinely carried out "peer reviewing" for a publication.

 

[~enigma~]

Absolutely, I raised this topic in another thread to gauge what the perception of "peer review" is compared to the reality. I think saying something has been "peer reviewed" might offer it marginally more credibility but it is actual independent verification by the community after publication that matters.

I had my illusions about this shattered by a poster on a politics forum about 5 years ago. He routinely carried out "peer reviewing" for a publication.

So peer reviews are essentially worthless in your opinion?

 

[William Rea]

So peer reviews are essentially worthless in your opinion?

No.

 

[~enigma~]

No.

What is their purpose?

 

[nicepants]

I think saying something has been "peer reviewed" might offer it marginally more credibility but it is actual independent verification by the community after publication that matters.

Is this "independent verification" somehow less credible if it happens prior to publication?

 

[LashL]

As someone who started publishing in 1975, I can tell you that some very bad papers pass so-called peer review, while others are rejected for strange, (not always technical), reasons.

I'm sure that some people here would be very interested in a list of your publications since 1975, and a list of your papers, if any, that were rejected for strange reasons.

Professors can be VERY competitive!

Competitiveness is not limited to professors. Why, all manner of non-professors (including chemists such as yourself) have been known to be competitive, as have a vast array of individuals in numerous professions and trades, when it comes to having their work published.

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....

The same thing has happened in art and music when great works were rejected by the appropriate "Academy".

Indeed. The same can be said of great legal arguments that were initially rejected, only to be ultimately accepted later. This happens relatively frequently in law, in fact.

None of the foregoing is good reason for a wholesale rejection of the peer-review process, though. It is not infallible, of course, but generally speaking, it works quite well.

 

[William Rea]

Is this "independent verification" somehow less credible if it happens prior to publication?

If I was arguing that then it might be relevant.

 

[T.A.M.]

As someone who started publishing in 1975, I can tell you that some very bad papers pass so-called peer review, while others are rejected for strange, (not always technical), reasons.

Professors can be VERY competitive!

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....

The same thing has happened in art and music when great works were rejected by the appropriate "Academy".

While I have not authored any papers submitted for Peer Review, I have been an investigator in a few. I would agree that there are elements of inconsistency in Peer Review, but not many, and over all the process works...and works well. I will trust a peer reviewed paper much more than one published in a journal (though these are rare) that has no peer review process.

TAM

 

[nicepants]

Is this "independent verification" somehow less credible if it happens prior to publication?

If I was arguing that then it might be relevant.

...see below.

I think saying something has been "peer reviewed" might offer it marginally more credibility but it is actual independent verification by the community after publication that matters.

Are you saying that independent verification AFTER publication means more than independent verification BEFORE publication?