Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

realcddeal said:
Who made the rule that review only needs to take place if something is published in a Journal?
Click to expand...

omg....


One would assume that one who consistently takes jabs at others for what they claim is a lack of peer review would have their published work reviewed.
Click to expand...

marks peers are joe schmoes
DRG and others, are writing papers that are beyond their expertise and fields of study. That's like me trying to write a fix it manual for a 1965 Ford Shelby Mustang.


Mark Roberts has several articles published on the Internet.
Click to expand...

and again, open for review and critique.


I think you are totally not understand what peer review is.
 
realcddeal said:
I did.
Click to expand...

OH? Care to link to us which journals (reputable) that you submitted your work to? Let see, in your line of work, I would say Implosionworld.com would be a good start. Did you give your paper to Controlled Demolitions Inc?
 
Not the brightest crayon in the bunch, eh?

Tell you what; if Mark ever writes a paper dealing with the SCIENTIFIC and MEASURABLE parts of 9/11, I'll demand a peer review. For now, I'll just enjoy reading his EDITORIALS and CRITIQUES of the 9/11 Twoof Movement.
 
realcddeal said:
It is called an independent review for accuracy.
Click to expand...

So you AREN'T talking about peer review, you're talking about independent review for accuracy, whatever that means.

Who performs these 'reviews', and do you think that truther papers should submit to the same thing?
 
Hmm, but Mark sources everything he writes.
It's not like a scientific hypothesis than needs reviewed by experts.

The layman like you or I can simply check if his sources say what he claims they do.
 
Sabrina said:
Not the brightest crayon in the bunch, eh?

Tell you what; if Mark ever writes a paper dealing with the SCIENTIFIC and MEASURABLE parts of 9/11, I'll demand a peer review. For now, I'll just enjoy reading his EDITORIALS and CRITIQUES of the 9/11 Twoof Movement.
Click to expand...

Happy Birthday, Sabrina!

Hope you are having a good'un!
 
This is ridiculous, honestly.

It's like asking a movie reviewer to have his critique of a movie peer reviewed; what's the POINT? Mark sources all his quotes; the rest of his papers, as I understand it, are sheer opinion pieces. How can you peer review an opinion?
 
realcddeal said:
No, fact checking journalists would do just fine.
Click to expand...

well seeing that he is pulling quotes, statements and testimony from the sources he lists in his footnotes, what fact checking needs to be done? all you have to do is look where where sourced the information from

again, you seriously do not have an understanding of what peer review is.

In any of hte Gravy's papers, has he posited his own calculations, provided scientific data of his own, or expressed his opinion on topics that he is not educated in, or has experience in? Care to point out where he has done this?

Now, what knowledge or expertise does DRG have in:
Avionics? Voice Morphing technology? Cell Phones? Aeronautical engineering? Controlled Demolitions?

Yet, he is free to voice his opinions on the matters above without anyone checking his "facts".

It is called an independent review for accuracy.
Click to expand...

um thats what a peer review is.
 
twinstead said:
So you AREN'T talking about peer review, you're talking about independent review for accuracy, whatever that means.

Who performs these 'reviews', and do you think that truther papers should submit to the same thing?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe they should all be reviewed by at least two others knowledgeable in the area concerned, before publishing.

Apparently that hasn't been done with Mark Roberts' work or has it?
 
realcddeal said:
No, fact checking journalists would do just fine.
Click to expand...

Well Mark isn't a journalist so that still wouldn't be a peer review. However you know where the papers are. All you need to do is get a few "fact checking journalists" to check them out and show what is wrong.



It is called an independent review for accuracy.
Click to expand...

What parts of his work are not accurate?
Click to expand...
 
realcddeal said:
Yes, I believe they should all be reviewed by at least two others knowledgeable in the area concerned, before publishing.
Click to expand...

Again, so why doesn't your "truther" bretheren do not do so?
Why is DRG commenting on issues that he has no clue about and passing them off as fact?

Apparently that hasn't been done with Mark Roberts' work or has it?
Click to expand...

Again, its open to critique. and he sources his information. he is ismply compiling them together . YOU can always check his sources.
 
realcddeal said:
Yes, I believe they should all be reviewed by at least two others knowledgeable in the area concerned, before publishing.

Apparently that hasn't been done with Mark Roberts' work or has it?
Click to expand...

Exactly how do YOU define 'two others knowledgeable in the area concerned'?
 
Arus808 said:
well seeing that he is pulling quotes, statements and testimony from the sources he lists in his footnotes, what fact checking needs to be done? all you have to do is look where where sourced the information from

again, you seriously do not have an understanding of what peer review is.

In any of hte Gravy's papers, has he posited his own calculations, provided scientific data of his own, or expressed his opinion on topics that he is not educated in, or has experience in? Care to point out where he has done this?

Now, what knowledge or expertise does DRG have in:
Avionics? Voice Morphing technology? Cell Phones? Aeronautical engineering? Controlled Demolitions?

Yet, he is free to voice his opinions on the matters above without anyone checking his "facts".



um thats what a peer review is.
Click to expand...


Didn't Mark Roberts write an open letter to NYC fireman John Shroeder telling him that he was confused about what he said he experienced in the towers on 911? I believe he did this without having talked to John Shroeder beforehand and simply went off of the Loose Change interview with Shroeder. Is that true?
 
Plus, where have Mark's papers been "published" anyway? As I understand it, he pays for the webspace they're hosted on, they've not been picked up by any journal, newspaper, or magazine to my knowledge; how does this translate to "published"?
 
Wow realcddeal, you're not taking Mark's criticism of your "peer-review" process well are you?

Mark has never claimed that his work is peer-reviewed. You and your fellow twoofer clowns have!

Mark has never claimed to have written a scientific paper. You and your fellow twoofer clowns have!

Therefor, peer-review is your problem, not his.

Quit acting like a friggin' child just because Mark pointed out what a complete fraud the "peer-review" process is at the "journal of 9/11 studies."

It's not his fault that you twoofers are following the lead of Holocaust Deniers in trying to pass off your bullcrap "research" as having made it through some kind of accuracy test in a real journal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom