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

[beachnut]

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!

This journal better pull this political tripe. Darn, they have an email. Anyone who calls that piece of false information paper, peer reviewed is lacking knowledge.

Did someone write them, I think it has been pulled. It is a joke.

The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.

Not if they publish that tripe. I found errors all over the paper. Poor.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

How many proofs of purchases do you need to the publishing fee?

 

[R.Mackey]

Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?

Not at all. It's pathetic because Dr. Jones has been telling everyone about his "peer-reviewed" journal, and all the great papers in it, for years.

Apparently that didn't exactly set the world on fire. So, he tries to publish for real. That's fine.

However, instead of publishing for real, he publishes in somebody else's sham journal. This gains him no credibility. The only change is, instead of trying to con other people, he falls for exactly the same con run by someone else... and even pays for the privilege.

That's pretty sad.

----

Upon reflection, however, I've decided that the general idea of an Open Access Journal, fees and all, is not inherently bad. The problem is that it makes it much, much harder for readers to distinguish a genuine OAJ from rabble producing their own whitepapers. As a result, the OAJ has to uphold the absolute highest standards of review, accuracy, transparency, and scientific rigor. If this is done, I support it.

I've just fired off a lengthy letter to the publishers at oa@bentham.org describing why this paper should have failed review, and asking them to reconsider it. We shall see their response. It's possible they were just completely blindsided by the Truth Movement.

If they can find and fix their problems, then I support the Bentham folks in their endeavors. But if they can't, then they're no Journal at all, whether they're trying to deceive or simply not up to the task regarding peer review.

 

[Stellafane]

That's like paying a stripper to be your prom date, if you ask me. Yeah, it looks good, but it cost you out the ass.

Actually, I think it's a bit more like paying a female impersonator to be your prom date. Epic fail all around.

 

[JamesB]

I posted this on the ole blog, but thought this part was amusing enough to cross-post.

I could not help but think of this quote from, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America by Michael Barkun, which I am currently in the process of reading.


At the same time that stigmatization is employed as a virtual guarantee of truth, the literature of stigmatized knowledge enthusiastically mimics mainstream scholarship. It does so by appropriating the apparatus of scholarship in the form of elaborate citations and bibliographies. The most common manifestation of pedantry is a fondness for reciprocal citation, in which the authors obligingly cite one another. The result is that the same sources are repeated over and over, which produces a kind of pseudoconfirmation. If a source is cited many times, it must be true. Because the claims made by conspiracy theorists are usually nonfalsifiable, the multiplication of sources may leave the impression of validation without actually putting any propositions to the test of evidence.





Update: This is what I am talking about as far as their incestous self-referential claims. Let's take this paragraph from their "peer review" paper.



Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis [13, 14].

Well, this has been argued in "published papers" so there must be some legitimacy to this claim to back up their argument, right? They were published after all.

Well let's look at the footnotes:



[13] S. E. Jones, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 1-47, September 2006. [Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].

[14] F. Legge and T. Szamboti, “9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden collapse initiation was impossible”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 18, pp. 1-3, December 2007. [Online]. Available: www. journalof911studies.com Accessed March 17, 2008].



Well, these papers were published by Jones, Legge, and Szamboti, who were 3 of the 5 authors of this paper in the first place, and it was published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which Jones founded, and whose editors are, you guessed it, Steven Jones and Frank Legge!

 

[JamesB]

Jones responds (sort of) on the 911 Blogger thread.

A page-charge is fairly common in technical journals,
especially OPEN-access journals, from what I've seen. Yes, some are making a big deal of this, overlooking this common practice -- it would be helpful if someone would research the page-charges for other journals, especially e-journals. Bentham explains, correctly, that having a publication fee in no way compromises the peer-review process.

I just found this at the JREF site -- so you can see what "R. Mackey" is doing (no doubt the same Ryan Mackey to whom Kevin Ryan replied, in the Journal of 911 Studies):
______________________________________

"Upon reflection, however, I've decided that the general idea of an Open Access Journal, fees and all, is not inherently bad. The problem is that it makes it much, much harder for readers to distinguish a genuine OAJ from rabble producing their own whitepapers. As a result, the OAJ has to uphold the absolute highest standards of review, accuracy, transparency, and scientific rigor. If this is done, I support it.

I've just fired off a lengthy letter to the publishers at oa@bentham.org describing why this paper should have failed review, and asking them to reconsider it. We shall see their response. It's possible they were just completely blindsided by the Truth Movement." [R. Mackey, JREF]

__________________

Interesting. Like I said in my blog, it would be nice to let the editors know that some readers of their journal SUPPORT the publication of this article.

Remember (as I said) that all three reviewers approved publication (I do NOT know who the reviewers were!), so it is unlikely that Mr. Mackey's objections will overturn the approval for publication. He could write me and explain why I should retract the paper, but it would need to have specific objections... (good luck)

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Jones responds (sort of) on the 911 Blogger thread.

I just found this at the JREF site [...]

S.Jones reads the Conspiracy Theories subforum of JREF? Huh...

Interesting. Like I said in my blog, it would be nice to let the editors know that some readers of their journal SUPPORT the publication of this article.

Somehow I doubt a bunch of emails saying "Thanks for publishing this" will outweigh a reasoned criticism. Unless, of course, this journal wants to merely please its "readers" without any regard to accuracy... but where would that leave the credibility of this paper?

Bad move, Jones, trying to turn this into a popularity contest. Bad, bad move...

 

[twinstead]

But isn't good science all about popularity? No? Ouch.

 

[R.Mackey]

Somehow I doubt a bunch of emails saying "Thanks for publishing this" will outweigh a reasoned criticism. Unless, of course, this journal wants to merely please its "readers" without any regard to accuracy... but where would that leave the credibility of this paper?

The irony is that, what little content there is in the whitepaper is basically correct -- stale, uninteresting, and already beat to death, but nonetheless correct. What's wrong with this paper is that it isn't science. It's a bunch of guys publishing errata and their own unsupported opinions in challenge to another, much more rigorous publication.

It's not a science paper. Its inclusion in this Journal is completely unwarranted.

Had Dr. Jones actually done some science, that would be different. He could motivate an experiment based on NIST, do the experiment, publish results, and contrast his findings to NIST. That's perfectly acceptable. Of course, if he does that, then he has to follow rigorous procedures of experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing, things he's failed to do in the past. But if he does a good experiment, then he should publish it.

This paper doesn't have anything new in it. There's not a repeatable conclusion in it anywhere. It also, incidentally, does not support any conspiracy theory, so I fail to see its utility to the Truth Movement except for the sheer PR value.

 

[The Big Dog]

Jones says:

"Remember (as I said) that all three reviewers approved publication (I do NOT know who the reviewers were!)"

I've located the reviewers! I don't know their names, but the review was very thorough!

Reviewer 1: Opened the envelope, found the check, confirmed the amount, made sure the check was signed.

Reviewer 2: Took the check from reviewer one, filled a detailed document known as a "deposit slip."

Reviewer Three: Received the most important document of all! The notice from the bank confirming that the check did not bounce.

And the Jones article was printed! Kudos!

 

[MikeyMetz]

Here's my favorite comment from the Jones disciples over at Blogger so far:

I have a very short college paper to write this weekend for a Science class where I need to cite a Journal article. My paper is on the "evidence of explosives used on 9/11". I have a brief class presentation on Tuesday with instructors present as judges.

This is just the ticket I need for a source!

Thanks to you guys (Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley ) and others! Ya'll are changing the world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.

-Tom T.

Ugh... His professor is going to beat his/her head against a desk. Hopefully, Tom gets torn apart by the judges during his presentation.

 

[LashL]

Jones responds (sort of) on the 911 Blogger thread.

A page-charge is fairly common in technical journals,
especially OPEN-access journals, from what I've seen.

How common? I did a random check at doaj and of the 50 journals I checked, the only ones that charged "publication fees" were those of Bentham, another similar company called Hindawi, and a Nigerian published journal called the International Journal of Physical Science. The vast majority of the journals in my random sample do not charge publication fees.

Now, obviously, my random sampling of open access science journals is not definitive by any stretch, but I'm not the one claiming that the practice is "common".

it would be helpful if someone would research the page-charges for other journals, especially e-journals.

Ha. As if Jones and his fellow pseudo-scholars didn't check into the publication fees after they failed to have any of their nonsense accepted by any legitimate, respected journal. My guess is that they went with the cheapest one they could find.

Bentham explains, correctly, that having a publication fee in no way compromises the peer-review process.

Um, would Jones really expect the fellow charging him in order to accept his completely-devoid-of-science "letter" to say otherwise?

Like I said in my blog, it would be nice to let the editors know that some readers of their journal SUPPORT the publication of this article.

Lol @ "readers of their journal". Jones means, "readers of my letter". As if any of the truther cult members - or any of us here, for that matter - had ever heard of this particular journal before now. It has all of two issues.

It's amusing that Jones seems worried enough about R. Mackey writing to Bentham that he has to call upon the cult members to write to Bentham in an appeal to popularity type of exercise. It is obvious that Jones hasn't any confidence in his ridiculous letter - for very good reason.

He could write me and explain why I should retract the paper, but it would need to have specific objections... (good luck)

Too funny. Obviously, Jones is reading this very thread, so he can see R. Mackey's specific objections right here.

What an idiot.

 

[Stellafane]

For Dr. Jones

...Obviously, Jones is reading this very thread, so he can see R. Mackey's specific objections right here.

Really? In that case, I'd like to address this to you personally, Dr. Jones. In all seriousness, why are you doing this? Do you really need someone like me to remind you that the respect of your peers is worth infinitely more than the adulation of diseased little minds? Sure, your whoring yourself for the sake of the 9/11 CTers has made you a big fish in a small pond. But the water in that pond is exceedingly polluted and toxic. Shame on you for misleading these poor, deluded children (and adults with childish minds) just so you can get a little malignant attention.

 

[CHF]

Perhaps Steven Jones (who is apparently reading this thread) would care to explain why he decided not to go with his microsphere/thermite research for this review and publication.

I'm sure I ain't the only one wondering what happened to all that "smoking gun" evidence.

 

[AZCat]

Perhaps Steven Jones (who is apparently reading this thread) would care to explain why he decided not to go with his microsphere/thermite research for this review and publication.

I'm sure I ain't the only one wondering what happened to all that "smoking gun" evidence.

In Jones' defense, he did say in his post at 911Blogger that there were two papers accepted for publication. We still don't know the topic of the second paper. It is possible that he has chosen his microsphere work to appear in that one.

 

[AZCat]

I just read through the article as it appears on the 911Blogger page. My first question is, "why did this require five authors?" It doesn't strike me as a particularly exhaustive article, primarily because it is pointless, stupid and wrong. Surely any one of the five is capable of producing such a steaming pile of crap all on his own. It's not like they bothered to be correct about their claims, or even make arguments that had a point.

 

[Sizzler]

Not at all. It's pathetic because Dr. Jones has been telling everyone about his "peer-reviewed" journal, and all the great papers in it, for years.

Apparently that didn't exactly set the world on fire. So, he tries to publish for real. That's fine.

However, instead of publishing for real, he publishes in somebody else's sham journal. This gains him no credibility. The only change is, instead of trying to con other people, he falls for exactly the same con run by someone else... and even pays for the privilege.

That's pretty sad.

----

Upon reflection, however, I've decided that the general idea of an Open Access Journal, fees and all, is not inherently bad. The problem is that it makes it much, much harder for readers to distinguish a genuine OAJ from rabble producing their own whitepapers. As a result, the OAJ has to uphold the absolute highest standards of review, accuracy, transparency, and scientific rigor. If this is done, I support it.

I've just fired off a lengthy letter to the publishers at oa@bentham.org describing why this paper should have failed review, and asking them to reconsider it. We shall see their response. It's possible they were just completely blindsided by the Truth Movement.

If they can find and fix their problems, then I support the Bentham folks in their endeavors. But if they can't, then they're no Journal at all, whether they're trying to deceive or simply not up to the task regarding peer review.

I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal.

Now is this journal just another scam? Although I haven't seen anything that would suggest it is a scam journal, it might very well be.

With that said, I think it is important to once again look at the claims made in his paper. By your own admission you have claimed that his information is correct (in a different post), and I would agree.

I think this is a great start in bridging cooperation between the "truth movement" and NIST. We are all still waiting for WTC7 report to come out after all. This, and other efforts may be what some of the NIST scientists need to look outside of the fire induced collapse hypothesis, if indeed it is proving unfeasible.

Would you be willing to post your letter to the publishers that you mentioned?

 

[LashL]

My first question is, "why did this require five authors?"

Because they had to pool their resources to pay the publication fee when they couldn't get their crap accepted by any legitimate journal, and all five of them want to be able to later claim that they've had a letter (which they will subsequently call a "scientific paper" - just watch) published in a "mainstream peer reviewed journal."

Members of the "truth" movement rarely, if ever, manage to live up to reasonable expectations, but they often manage to live down to the lowest of expectations (this particular piece of crap letter is a good example), and they often sink to such sub-levels of self-delusion and insanity that rational people can only pity them, shake their heads, turn away in disgust, or ... try to help them overcome their delusions by countering their nonsense with reality. 'Tis a thankless task, but somebody has to do it. Thank goodness for debunkers.

 

[beachnut]

Now is this journal just another scam? Although I haven't seen anything that would suggest it is a scam journal, it might very well be.

Jones work is political tripe weaved into a supposedly technical paper. How scientific is an article with political rant. It is sad to see someone make up thermite 4 years after 9/11 and pathetically fail at backing in evidence, to keep his failed idea alive.

When someone support Jones, you know they lack knowledge, can not do basic research, and do not care for evidence.

It is very funny they paid to publish, and it makes this journal suspect for accepting such a failed paper. Their reputation, the journal, will suffer since 99.99 percent of all engineer and scientist see this type of work as pure opinions base on political biases and false information and conclusions. This is the reason Jones was fired in the first place; to go tilt at windmills, howl at the moon, and he is now only short taxi fare for happy dale.

OMG, he put in thermite! How much did they pay for that peer review?
When the paper is not pulled, you know the journal is a for pay, you can publish anything.
When a few people who do not usually read 9/11 truth junk see the paper/letter, they will make some noise and take action, unlike 9/11 truth.

 

[Sizzler]

Jones work is political tripe weaved into a supposedly technical paper. How scientific is an article with political rant. It is sad to see someone make up thermite 4 years after 9/11 and pathetically fail at backing in evidence, to keep his failed idea alive.

When someone support Jones, you know they lack knowledge, can not do basic research, and do not care for evidence.

It is very funny they paid to publish, and it makes this journal suspect for accepting such a failed paper. Their reputation, the journal, will suffer since 99.99 percent of all engineer and scientist see this type of work as pure opinions base on political biases and false information and conclusions. This is the reason Jones was fired in the first place; to go tilt at windmills, howl at the moon, and he is now only short taxi fare for happy dale.

OMG, he put in thermite! How much did they pay for that peer review?
When the paper is not pulled, you know the journal is a for pay, you can publish anything.
When a few people who do not usually read 9/11 truth junk see the paper/letter, they will make some noise and take action, unlike 9/11 truth.

Jones made thermite up 4 years ago? Geesh, why didn't you tell me that before. Oh wait, you did, in EVERY post you have EVER directed towards me.

Instead of repeating the same lines, why don't you tell me what part of Jones' letter is incorrect.