• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Merged]Peer-reviewed technical paper to appear in mainstream journal

So if I write a paper about "Vaccines cause all diseases known to man", have my fellow Docs read it, and then submit it to "Mad Magazine", is it technically the publication of a peer reviewed article in a mainstream journal??

TAM;)
 
The only thing I see interesting about this is it's an acknowledgment on the part of Dr. Jones that publication in a mainstream journal is more respectable than in his own. Otherwise, why would he bother with this?
 
T.A.M. said:
So am I to understand that the S. Jones paper was peer reviewed by his own paranoid crack pots, and then submitted and published in a throw away mag?

It will be interesting to see:

(1) Which journal/magazine it is published in
(2) Which section of the journal it is published in
(3) The replies to it, in future additions (should be priceless)

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I think he is learning from the Loose Change boys though, based on the newer versions of his paper he is pretty much LIHOP physics. Well, some metallurgical things happened at the World Trade Center, we aren't quite sure what, but we think they are weird. Someone smarter than us should look into it.

Pretty lazy science.
 
I've always wondered why truthers don't understand this whole peer-review concept.

Science isn't a game of whose dick is bigger.


The correctness of your methods, your ideas and your conclusions is not evaluated by whether or not you've published them. It's not established by peer review. It is established through repeat experimentation, presentation at scientific symposia and concept analysis done at other labs by other scientists. The impact of an idea, however new and revolutionary, is evaluated through repeat publication and citation.

As to Jones, the issue has always been that he hasn't even bothered to take the first step and get his paper peer reviewed. Imagine if a car dealer showed you a rusted out hunk of metal. Your response might be, "How could this be a car, it hasn't got any wheels?!" So the car dealer shows you a mattress pad with 4 wheels attached to it. Would you be happy?

The point is that Jones is finally, 7 years after the event and 4 years after he fell off the Woo truck, taking his first step as a legitimate researcher. His ideas are still bonkers, and his methodology is still crap, but he is taking a first step. That doesn't, in any way, make him right about anything.

Side note: The issues for ASCE Structural Design and Construction, ACI Structures, ASCE Structural Engineering have all already come out this quarter. So it's likely not to be one of those, is it?
 
This gives me a great get-rich-quick idea.

Start a journal called "Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal". Accept any paper from anyone willing to pay out $5,000 or more. They then have the bragging rights to having published in my journal, widely read by anyone who has paid me $5,000 or more.

Although, from the looks of things, it appears someone else has already thought of it.
 
johnny karate said:
The only thing I see interesting about this is it's an acknowledgment on the part of Dr. Jones that publication in a mainstream journal is more respectable than in his own. Otherwise, why would he bother with this?
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it. This is the closest Steven Jones will ever get to admitting that his "peer-review" journal is a complete sham. Not that the sane people of this world didn't already know that, but it might come as a shock to some of the morons who trusted him.

In all likelyhood, if Jones ever does get published somewhere meaningful, he will likely go from "OMG! Thermite!" to full-fledged JAQ-off. "Wow, there micro-spheres are weird! I wonder what they mean...."
 
T.A.M. said:
It will be interesting to see:

(1) Which journal/magazine it is published in
(2) Which section of the journal it is published in
Click to expand...

It will be one of those glossy inserts in the Sunday paper with coupons for Pizza Hut on the back.
 
Question here - for one off events (most of history), does anyone know what the peer review process is? I am familiar with science and engineering journals. The OP said "mainstream journal", not scientific journal. I'm thinking he may be going the history journal route.
 
I'm wondering why any technical paper of any kind would appear in any mainstream publication. Perhaps Jones is simply misunderstanding what those two terms mean.

However, if this is real and not just some play on words, then... all the better. It would be like someone who's boasted for years about how they could outbox any professional boxer (since after all, everyone knows professional matches are rigged), finally actually entering the ring.

Passing peer review is not an affirmation that a paper's findings are correct. (That would require peer reviewers to repeat all the experiments themselves, and even that would be no guarantee.) It's an affirmation that the paper meet certain standards in how thoroughly and consistently it presents its case, sufficient to allow other researchers to confirm or refute those findings with further analysis or experimentation.

Passing peer review means you can start participating in professional scientific or technical discourse. Someone who's taken years to get that far can perhaps be forgiven for mistaking that starting line for the finish line.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Passing peer review is not an affirmation that a paper's findings are correct. (That would require peer reviewers to repeat all the experiments themselves, and even that would be no guarantee.) It's an affirmation that the paper meet certain standards in how thoroughly and consistently it presents its case, sufficient to allow other researchers to confirm or refute those findings with further analysis or experimentation.
Click to expand...

Didn't Nature publish a parapsychology piece just as an example of how NOT to write a scientific paper (which, of course, didn't stop the authors from bragging about their accomplishment)? I read about it in Randi's Flim-Flam, but I can't remember the authors or what it was about.
 
Last edited:
I am guessing, if it is in fact a real mainstream journal, it may be an op-ed type piece. I agree, any "mainstream" journal is unlikely to publish all, or even part, of a scientific paper.

This brings up the questions (A) is it a scientific paper he submitted, and (B) is the journal a mainstream science journal such as "Nature" etc...

lol...wouldn't it be ironic if he got published in Popular Mechanics...lol

TAM:)
 
You know, folks have to be careful about drawing too many conclusions from the publishing of Jones's work in a peer reviewed journal. Remember, as Apollo20 here said (or at least, I think he said it; damn it all that the much maligned search function is missing today!), some of his work in the metal-rich spherules paper can probably find a home in some journals, and that is because the actual spectroscopic work is pretty straightfoward and conventional. It's just that some people try to make it out to be more than it is, which is simply a finding of a group of particles that has many explanations for their genesis. Only one of those explanations include thermite.

Like any other aspect of the various investigations into individual topics on 9/11, it's what the fantasists make of a certain work that ends up being ridiculous. The work Jones is publishing might very well be rather mundane and noncontroversial.
 
slyjoe said:
Question here - for one off events (most of history), does anyone know what the peer review process is? I am familiar with science and engineering journals. The OP said "mainstream journal", not scientific journal. I'm thinking he may be going the history journal route.
Click to expand...


The peer-review process for humanities journals is quite similar to that for scientific journals. If a paper passes initial screening from the journal's editorial staff, it is sent out to be reviewed by a number of experts in the relevant field. After receiving comments from the reviewers, the journal may either choose to publish the paper, reject it outright, or send it back to the author(s) for revision.

As an exercise, one of my professors once gave everyone in a seminar a copy of a history textbook chapter that he'd been assigned to review, and had us pair off. Each pair was required to deliver a brief critique of one section. The reviews were almost universally poor. Afterwards the professor said that he was astounded that something so bad could have even been submitted for a textbook, let alone been sent out for review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom