peer review.

[Apollo20]

Two points on this topic:

1. I am aware of a number of cases where a journal has rejected a paper, the author makes a few MINOR changes, submits the revised article to a different journal, and it is accepted. Thus there is no ABSOLUTE standard of quality in research.

2. I once discussed the issue of the quality of papers in the scientific literature with nobel prize winner Gerhard Herzberg and he said that there are two types of paper out there:

(i) Papers that provide data that will serve as quality reference data and as such will essentially always be of value, and
(ii) Papers that provide questionable data that will ultimately prove to be of little value or entirely erroneous.

In fact Herzberg believed that this IS THE PURPOSE of research literature: to separate the good from the bad!

Thus Herzberg argued that you shouldn't worry too much about the quality of a particular paper because research is self-correcting... good research is ultimatly recognized for what it is, as is bad.

 

[T.A.M.]

Two points on this topic:

1. I am aware of a number of cases where a journal has rejected a paper, the author makes a few MINOR changes, submits the revised article to a different journal, and it is accepted. Thus there is no ABSOLUTE standard of quality in research.

Agreed, just as there are journal of higher repute, and lower, so are there peer review processes of the same.

2. I once discussed the issue of the quality of papers in the scientific literature with nobel prize winner Gerhard Herzberg and he said that there are two types of paper out there:

(i) Papers that provide data that will serve as quality reference data and as such will essentially always be of value, and
(ii) Papers that provide questionable data that will ultimately prove to be of little value or entirely erroneous.

In fact Herzberg believed that this IS THE PURPOSE of research literature: to separate the good from the bad!

Thus Herzberg argued that you shouldn't worry too much about the quality of a particular paper because research is self-correcting... good research is ultimatly recognized for what it is, as is bad.

Also agreed. Peer Review is not often used to determine the validity or quality of the conclusions a paper makes, but rather to make sure that the research meets certain standards, the paper as a whole meets certain criteria. I have read articles that were peer reviewed and published, that were so full of bias, and skewed statistics, that they were torn to shreds both by myself and others in our journal club, as well as by letters to the editor in the follow up months.

TAM

 

[~enigma~]

1. I am aware of a number of cases where a journal has rejected a paper, the author makes a few MINOR changes, submits the revised article to a different journal, and it is accepted. Thus there is no ABSOLUTE standard of quality in research.

Did the author think about resubmitting the changed paper? How can you claim that it would have still been rejected after edits? but anyway why exactly is the fact that two different journals have different standards? Are all journals supposed to be the same?

Thus Herzberg argued that you shouldn't worry too much about the quality of a particular paper because research is self-correcting... good research is ultimatly recognized for what it is, as is bad.

Are you actually claiming that based on this it is ok to publish an incorrect paper? And why do you think we are supposed to get on our knees and worship this because it was said by a past nobel prize winner? Famous people say stupid things all the time...it's a requirement of being famous.

Just because you feel slighted by the peer review process doesn't make it bad and to be brutally honest it is quite immature and nor befitting a man of your age to "sling mud" at the process just because it "bit" you in the past.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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".

Good post. The merit of the paper is what really counts, and that will generally be fully discerned after an item is published, when a larger group has a chance to see and accept or reject the work based on its merits or lack of. Peer review is only an initial gate in the process which then includes the public at large. Unfortunately, as you point out, it is sometimes abused and papers with merit are initially kept from the public at large, and some that maybe should not be published pass through peer review which some erroneously associate with instant credibility. However, when viewed by large numbers the wheat is generally sifted from the chaff.

As Abraham Lincoln so aptly said "You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

As John Kennedy so aptly said "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".

When everyone is allowed to see all of the information on a particular subject the truth or falsehood of a situation or idea will invariably be determined.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

...see below.



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

I hope you will excuse me William but this should be said. Yes, verification after publication is a much more stringent test of the merits of a work and therefore means a lot more.

 

[~enigma~]

I hope you will excuse me William but this should be said. Yes, verification after publication is a much more stringent test of the merits of a work and therefore means a lot more.

iOW, papers written by MaGz, Ace, Lyte Trip, Judy Wood, Uncle Fester, Steven Jones...on all their vastly different and insane 9/11 theories should be published so the public at large can tell them they are all loons...nice thought for a woo but their papers aren't published. Have any idea why?

 

[Apollo20]

Enigma:

Where do you get the idea that I feel slighted by the peer review process. I have written about 80 research papers, mostly internal reports at Ontario Hydro (which later became Ontario Power Generation), but quite a few in journals as well.... I can assure you that ALL of my papers were peer reviewed by other Ph. D. scientists. I have only had ONE paper rejected by a journal (Surface and Interface Analysis) and that was because the university research group I co-authored the paper with had pi**ed-off the German scientist who reviewed it, by previously fudging data in the same area of research (Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry)! The irony of all this is that the rejected paper was actually an expose of the previous cooking of data by a member of the group.

 

[rwguinn]

I hope you will excuse me William but this should be said. Yes, verification after publication is a much more stringent test of the merits of a work and therefore means a lot more.

Truly, the peer review prior to publication is supposed to be a method of weeding-out shaky research, sloppy methodology, and bias.
It is only after publication that additional heads can attempt to duplicate the research, find the subtle errors, and substantiate or refute the conclusions and findings.
Much as numerous groups have done with the NIST report on WTC 1 and 2

 

[beachnut]

great words ignored by 9/11 truth movement

As Abraham Lincoln so aptly said "You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

As John Kennedy so aptly said "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".

When everyone is allowed to see all of the information on a particular subject the truth or falsehood of a situation or idea will invariably be determined.

Neat words lost falling on the deaf ears of liars, fools and idiots of 9/11 truth. Why is the 9/11 truth movement just lies like CD, thermite and beam weapons. Liars, nuts and insanity: The 9/11 truth Parade.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

iOW, papers written by MaGz, Ace, Lyte Trip, Judy Wood, Uncle Fester, Steven Jones...on all their vastly different and insane 9/11 theories should be published so the public at large can tell them they are all loons...nice thought for a woo but their papers aren't published. Have any idea why?

I didn't say papers should not pass some form of peer review and even though peer review is subjective there is hard science involved in peer review of scientific papers which some of those you mention do not live up to.

However, I do believe the public at large should be exposed to these ideas and the arguments for and against them. From what I have read Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood have lost credibility among the vast majority of those who have read what they have to say about the building collapses in NYC on 9/11/2001. They seem to have essentially self destructed in the public mind due to the lack of scientific basis for what they say. Ace is simply a tag along on their merry go round. I don't know that you can say the same about Jones. Do you believe there is no evidence that there was molten metal and sulfidated steel in the rubble under the three collapsed WTC buildings?

I think a paper involving extremely controversial subjects, which any paper positing a potential 911 conspiracy, rejecting government claims, and calling for a new investigation would certainly qualify as, is operating at a disadvantage when it comes to getting it published. Public perception of their publication is usually considered by Journals as well as book publishers and many are loathe to get involved in a controversy of this magnitude. Lack of being able to get a controversial work published does not imply that a work has no merit. History is replete with examples of this being true. This is why Jones and Ryan started their own Journal. The ideas are there for you to freely accept or reject based on their merits. Jones and Ryan were obviously not worried about the perception of themselves. The public should be exposed to what they are saying as well as any counter arguments.

 

[e^n]

I apologise for bringing this into another thread, Realcddeal you have still not responded to this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2817304#post2817304

 

[leftysergeant]

I think we could even consider the effects on the the careers of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to constitute a sort of peer review.

 

[T.A.M.]

None of the 9/11 truth movement, Fetzer, Wood, OR JONES, have a leg to stand on in terms of Scientific integrety or diligence. Jones was editor and helped select the peer review panel for the same journal that he submitted his own research to. He has either (A) not submitted his work to any respectable journals, or (B) has done so, and in all likelihood been rejected by all of them.

I have yet to see a paper written by any of the truth movement that would pass muster with any worthwhile Peer Review process.

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I apologise for bringing this into another thread, Realcddeal you have still not responded to this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2817304#post2817304

e^n, I have looked at the material and will respond to you on the other thread. It should be the last or near last response as that thread has calmed down significantly.

 

[T.A.M.]

Maybe the truth movement should ask their latest starlet, Torin "I iz an expert in everyting" Wolf, to write a paper and submit it for Peer Review.

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Maybe the truth movement should ask their latest starlet, Torin "I iz an expert in everyting" Wolf, to write a paper and submit it for Peer Review.

TAM

I think they should and if the peer reviewer believes there is merit to the work then it should be published irrespective of the controversial nature of the subject, as that gives you and I and everybody else a chance to scrutinize his arguments. If they are bad his ideas will be discredited on truly scientific grounds by the public at large.

 

[leftysergeant]

The peers of Jones, Fetzer and Wood have already concluded that those "scholars" have shown a decided lack of insight or care for real research and have told them to go sit in the corner.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think they should and if the peer reviewer believes there is merit to the work then it should be published irrespective of the controversial nature of the subject, as that gives you and I and everybody else a chance to scrutinize his arguments. If they are bad his ideas will be discredited on truly scientific grounds by the public at large.

Great so when can we expect to see his paper submitted?

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Great so when can we expect to see his paper submitted?

TAM

I think you need to ask him.

 

[~enigma~]

Enigma:

Where do you get the idea that I feel slighted by the peer review process. I have written about 80 research papers, mostly internal reports at Ontario Hydro (which later became Ontario Power Generation), but quite a few in journals as well.... I can assure you that ALL of my papers were peer reviewed by other Ph. D. scientists. I have only had ONE paper rejected by a journal (Surface and Interface Analysis) and that was because the university research group I co-authored the paper with had pi**ed-off the German scientist who reviewed it, by previously fudging data in the same area of research (Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry)! The irony of all this is that the rejected paper was actually an expose of the previous cooking of data by a member of the group.

Not an idea. You made it clear you are pissed off ansd jealous because of you "failed" scientist status. You should be proud though because thanks to you we have a new phrase in failed scientist instead of mad scientist (but I know you really are both).