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

[CptColumbo]

Sounds like you tell them who will review it.

It reads more like you can suggest reviewers, but the "editorial advisory board" still has to be consulted. Still, I'm not experienced enough in the process to know if this is unusual, or how rigorous their review process is.

 

[DGM]

It reads more like you can suggest reviewers, but the "editorial advisory board" still has to be consulted. Still, I'm not experienced enough in the process to know if this is unusual, or how rigorous their review process is.

I agree. I'm sure they have to approve the reviewers. This type of journal wouldn't normally have it's own reviewers in the relevant fields. They publish such a wide variety of subjects.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

It was published, and they require a fee for publication.....

2. Please define "vanity publisher".

Encarta
van·i·ty pub·lish·ing


noun
Definition:

publishing at authors' expense: the business of publishing books at the author's expense

If you're implying that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed, you're lying.

Well our definitions of peer-review seem a little different. I use it in the academic/professional term meaning that I don't get to choose my reviewers.

..or feel free to continue embarrassing yourself and JREF by spouting those obvious lies. Like I said, you guys are only fooling yourselves.

Why lie? When the truth is oh so much more fun

 

[boloboffin]

The question of Jones suggesting reviewers or not is easily resolved.

Jones should release his Covering Letter.

 

[Minadin]

Wow. Pretty lame all around. It's like they aren't even trying anymore.

 

[Doctor Evil]

Sounds like it might be a little bit over your head.

I must say I find your response amusing. Self serving assumptions, definitely not the way to go.

 

[WildCat]

For god sake. Read the publishing terms for the journal. Are you that research challenged?

Yes he is. Unless someone holds his hand and personally shows him, he's clueless as to what to do.

 

[Walter Ego]

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

I did provide proof. You must have missed it. Here it is again.

This is from the publishers webpage.

PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:

Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is $600.

Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is $800.

Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is $600.

Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is $900.

Once the paper is accepted for publication, the author will receive by email an electronic invoice. The fee form is also available on the Web site at www.bentham.org/open/feeform Submissions from the Editorial Board Members of the journals will receive a special discount of 50% on the total publication fee. Submissions by authors from developing countries will receive a discount of 30% on the total publication fee charge.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm

It's possible the fee was waived but I kinda doubt it.

2. Please define "vanity publisher".

Vanity publishers charge authors to get published. See above.

If you're implying that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed, you're lying.

This from the publisher suggests Jones could have nonimated the 'peers' to review his paper (or letter or whatever it is).

Quote:
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.

 

[kookbreaker]

Someday, truthers will learn that bluster and spittle is not an effective way to press their arguement.

On that day, they will probably stop being truthers.

 

[WildCat]

Who wants to bet that Richard Gage was one of the reviewers?

Something tells me that "Honest" Steven Jones won't be releasing the identities of his "peer reviewers".

 

[Stellafane]

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.

That's it. You guys have officially become too pathetic to even be laughed at. A "paper" published in an obscure publication that they had to pay for (that's called "advertising" in the real world). And it's so watered down as to say absolutely nothing. And this to you is a major accomphishment. I can't laugh at you anymore, but it's not for the reason you probably anticipated.

 

[DGM]

That's it. You guys have officially become too pathetic to even be laughed at. A "paper" published in an obscure publication that they had to pay for (that's called "advertising" in the real world). And it's so watered down as to say absolutely nothing. And this to you is a major accomphishment. I can't laugh at you anymore, but it's not for the reason you probably anticipated.

Jones is getting the effect he wanted. "Truthers" are jumping up and down about a paper reviewed and published in something other than a woo journal. The contents and context of this "break through" are irrelevant.

 

[JamesB]

I guess the 911 blogger people read JREF religiously:

http://911blogger.com/node/15081

(EDIT: FYI, it is extremely common for Open Access Journals to charge a publication fee. This in no way reflects upon the quality of the peer review process, or the contents of the paper. -rep.)

 

[ref]

The actual paper makes me yawn. Old points. Like comparing WTC attacks to a 707 landing in a fog and the comparison to the Empire State Building accident. What was the size of the plane that hit ESB again, Jones? What is the structure of ESB like?

And the usage of the NIST quote “…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” without acknowledging the reason why NIST said this. Because the computer models were unable to converge a solution, because of the magnitude of deflections and the number of failures occurring.

That's a dishonest yawner of a paper.

 

[CHF]

So after all that hype what do we get?

A JAQ-off piece where the author cites his own work as a source and appears to have picked his own reviewers.

Take a bow, TM!

 

[twinstead]

So after all that hype what do we get?

A JAQ-off piece where the author cites his own work as a source and appears to have picked his own reviewers.

Take a bow, TM!

I'm SO proud of the truth movement. Their most recent triumph just brings a little tear to my eye....sniff....

 

[Unsecured Coins]

 

[CHF]

My God, Jones is still rambling about the "pancake" theory of collapse - ignoring the fact that it refers to how the collapse started.

Jones' next step would be to tackle the NIST theory that perimeter columns bending inwards started the collapse. Yet he won't touch it.

 

[tanabear]

Ummm:

Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article? Source given is:

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

"Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report."

 

[rwguinn]

I did provide proof. You must have missed it. Here it is again.

This is from the publishers webpage.


It's possible the fee was waived but I kinda doubt it.




Vanity publishers charge authors to get published. See above.



This from the publisher suggests Jones could have nonimated the 'peers' to review his paper (or letter or whatever it is).

Interestingly enough, according to the web page list of fees, an individual would have to also pay a fee just to refute Jones paper!
$600 payment just to say "That's a load of ****, or $900 to say "This paper is suffused with that which causes growth, and is very powerful" makes it irrefutable!