• 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

I hope the Troofers hear realise this is a truly spectacular own goal. After seven years, the best they can do is BUY space in a vanity journal.
 
Nick Terry said:
I hope the Troofers hear realise this is a truly spectacular own goal. After seven years, the best they can do is BUY space in a vanity journal.
Click to expand...

I am still not sure that this is a vanity journal. There is a new aspect of scientific publishing, called open access. The idea is that the author of a paper pay a fee, and then their paper can be read by anyone, even without subscription to the Journal.

If you would ask for my guess, this is the case here. I would also guess that the paper will not contain anything which is related directly to 'da troof'. It will most probably be an analysis of microspheres as was discussed in another thread.

ETA here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110489 I suggest the MODS will merge this thread into that one.
 
Last edited:
Ahh! :newlol Yes, I will take that challenge given that I could easily find four people that agree with me that are college Professors, and pay $600.

Peer-Review is like regular legitimate publishing. You are not supposed to pay to be published, at all. That and the peer-review process is supposed to be anonymous in that you are not supposed to know who have reviewed your work.

So let them brag on this sad testament vanity publications. I'll go write my counter thesis and publish the abstract on Poetry.com and publish the Novelization through Publish America. Lets see Jones stand up to that.:newlol
 
Last edited:
The paper passed peer-review. It's been peer-reviewed and published.

Stephen Jones also included this in his message over at 911blogger.com:

With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

He hit the nail right on the head.

I find this to be especially satisfying, because I now get to watch you guys squirm, as you try desperately to find a reason to ignore this peer-reviewed publication. You'll probably just move the goalposts.. again.

Stephen Jones was correct, until you start published peer-reviewed research, your opinions are meaningless to anyone but yourselves.


​
 
deep44 said:
The paper passed peer-review. It's been peer-reviewed and published.

Stephen Jones also included this in his message over at 911blogger.com:

(bolding mine)

He hit the nail right on the head.

I find this to be especially satisfying, because I now get to watch you guys squirm, as you try desperately to find a reason to ignore this peer-reviewed publication. You'll probably just move the goalposts.. again.

Stephen Jones was correct, until you start published peer-reviewed research, your opinions are meaningless to anyone but yourselves.


​
Click to expand...
What new ground breaking evidence has been presented here? How does this help your movement? Bragging rights to another meaningless paper on one will pay attention to? The paper essentially says we think the investigations so far are wrong. This is nothing more the paying to say we are "just asking questions".
 
I find this to be especially satisfying, because I now get to watch you guys squirm, as you try desperately to find a reason to ignore this peer-reviewed publication. You'll probably just move the goalposts.. again.
Click to expand...

Following the link, I have found this:
In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses.
Click to expand...

What is your point? That they manage to publish a letter telling us how they agree with previous results. How lame.
 
Nick Terry said:
I hope the Troofers hear realise this is a truly spectacular own goal. After seven years, the best they can do is BUY space in a vanity journal.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that the paper was not peer-reviewed? Care to provide your proof? Or is that just another pathetic JREF lie?

As for whether or not a fee was paid - I'm not sure; however, I wouldn't be surprised, considering it is an open access journal. How else would you suggest they pay to host and maintain the website + cover general operational costs?

The bottom line is this: the paper was peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal. There's nothing you can say or do to change that fact.
 
deep44 said:
Are you suggesting that the paper was not peer-reviewed? Care to provide your proof? Or is that just another pathetic JREF lie?
Click to expand...

You get to pick the people that "review" your work. You can literally pick four people willing to give it a pass.

As for whether or not a fee was paid - I'm not sure; however, I wouldn't be surprised, considering it is an open access journal. How else would you suggest they pay to host and maintain the website + cover general operational costs?
Click to expand...

Well in the non-academic world this is through advertising. In the academic world you pay for it through professional memberships and subcription fees. That is why most peer-reviewed journals are put out by professional organizations. Still look to the issue of choosing your own reviewers as a means to criticise this publication.

The bottom line is this: the paper was peer-reviewed (potentially by people of the author's choosing) and published in a scientific (vanity) journal. There's nothing you can say or do to change that fact.
Click to expand...

(I fixed that for you)

We all did. There are issues that cast suspicion upon viewing this as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. And it is funny how Jone's specifically mentions how we bad people will attack the publication, because he obviously knows there is something wrong with any review structure that allows you to hand pick your reviewers.
 
I took the time to look the this 'so called paper'. And, yes, 'so called paper' is the correct term for it. Is that supposed to present an original work? It is just a few pages of various citations from other work or from people, without any serious discussion of any technical point. Frankly, I would have been ashamed to publish such a paper. I am not familiar with the standards of publication in the engineering community, but still wonder how it got published.
 
deep44:
Out of curiosity, Have you read this letter yet? I'm kind of puzzled why you seem so excited about it. I think you demonstrate perfectly the reaction Jones was trying to get with this letter.
 
So Jones paid to have his paper published by a vanity publisher? Too funny, even funnier than the High Times and Mad magazine jokes, 5 laughing dogs!

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
 
Last edited:
orphia nay said:
Hahahaha! I thought for a minute, "Publication Fee" might mean what Jones would be paid, but no... from Walter Ego's link:



"We will publish your article, but only if you pay us."
:newlol
Click to expand...

My reading of that rate list suggests that $600 doesn't get the author any review, peer or otherwise.

Am I wrong?
 
I love No. 4 -

We totally agree that the WTC Towers included “massive”
interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings,
in addition to the columns in the outside walls. The
central core columns bore much of the gravity loads so the
Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the false notion that
the Towers were “hollow tubes” with the floors supported
just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide
acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering
professor asserted, “The structural design of the towers was
unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of
closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The
resulting structure was similar to a tube…” [12].
The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial
load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns
– and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling
false popular notions.
Click to expand...

One of their "points of agreement" is that the Towers had massive, load-bearing columns. Oh, excellent.

Are we all agreed that the attacks happened on 11 September 2001? Yes? Dang, that could have been 15 points of agreement. Maybe Jones could slip the journal a quick $50 and get an addendum in the next issue.
 
BigAl said:
My reading of that rate list suggests that $600 doesn't get the author any review, peer or otherwise.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you tell them who will review it.
 
WildCat said:
So Jones paid to have his paper published by a vanity publisher? Too funny, even funnier than the High Times and Mad magazine jokes, 5 laughing dogs!
Click to expand...


1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

2. Please define "vanity publisher". If you're implying that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed, you're lying.

--

..or feel free to continue embarrassing yourself and JREF by spouting those obvious lies. Like I said, you guys are only fooling yourselves.
 
On a not-so-scientific note, their paper uses a total of 7 times their very own journalof911studies (JONES) as a source. As we all know, peer-reviewers for JONES include Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti. And who are among the five authors of this new paper? Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti! So they use papers that are peer-reviewed by themselves as sources. How scientific indeed.

Of those citations, two of the most important seem to be the ones discussing the molten material pouring out of WTC, and the thermite evidence. Both are Steven Jones papers. Steven Jones cites his own (not properly peer-reviewed) papers to bring the point through.
 
Last edited:
deep44 said:
1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

2. Please define "vanity publisher". If you're implying that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed, you're lying.

--

..or feel free to continue embarrassing yourself and JREF by spouting those obvious lies. Like I said, you guys are only fooling yourselves.
Click to expand...
For god sake. Read the publishing terms for the journal. Are you that research challenged?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom