The sad case of Niels Harrit

[The Almond]

I live in Denmark, am studying the truthers as an anthropologist, have attended Harrit's lectures in Copenhagen, translated some materials about him and about the Bentham journal, and I have spoken with him several times. Harrit is a chemist, assoc. prof. at the university, an accomplished saxophonist, and has clear leftist sympathies in line with most European academics, which means a virulent anti-Americanism of the character "love the people, hate the government". He can get emotional about his topic, as do all truthers (most recently on the radio broadcast from New Mexico in August, see screwloosechange), and dogmatic in arguments, but he ain't crazy. Of more importance is that from September 1st, Harrit has been pensioned off from the university, age 64. In Denmark, univ. teachers can choose to work many years longer, but there are also budget constraints, esp. at the natural science faculties, in which entire units can lose grants and be closed down. Harrit may have been affected here. This means that I am unable to determine if Harrit was forced out, eased out, or received a retirement package he couldn't refuse. Since most truther experts (Griffin, Fetzer, Jones) are retired academics -- who else has the time to do all this nanothermite stuff or comb the net for more smoking guns -- we can probably expect to hear more from Harrit in the future. Harrit himself intimidated this in a recent talk, that he won't be muzzled by his job as a civil servant. Regarding Bentham and open access, Harrit paid the publication fee from his university research account. But the real scandal is the editor of the journal who apparently was not aware of what she was publishing. For what its worth, all of us are being increasingly compelled to publish only in open access journals, with necessary payment stipulations. But we all need to make sure that open acess doesnt come to mean more drivel out there...steve s

Interesting stuff, thanks for your contribution. Regarding your comments about Open Access, however, I think that OA journals have already become synonymous with crap publishing. Bentham in particular runs a well established scam. For almost no cost to them (aside from web hosting and some labor in converting documents to the appropriate format), they charge people to have their papers attached to the OA journal website. $600 is an exorbitant fee for a company with very little operating costs and absolutely no printing costs. That's it; real journals charge for printing color pages and for the labor of the editorship. But Bentham's "peer review" and editorship of the journals is largely fluff, and they have no printing costs. Then, they send out mass marketing emails asking anyone with a PhD to become an editor of the journal. The unsuspecting academic happily agrees, puts the editorship on her resume, and proceeds to never hear from the journal again. Meanwhile, anyone with a valid bank account can publish anything they want, to the detriment of the reputation of said editorship.

I don't doubt that most academics are honest, hard working researchers who are only interested in fast, convenient publication. Ultimately, though, the problem is the turd in the fruit basket. Because moronic papers can get through just as easily as real ones, it's not worthwhile to publish in a journal which is so willing to sacrifice its reputation for money.

 

[bill smith]

I live in Denmark, am studying the truthers as an anthropologist, have attended Harrit's lectures in Copenhagen, translated some materials about him and about the Bentham journal, and I have spoken with him several times. Harrit is a chemist, assoc. prof. at the university, an accomplished saxophonist, and has clear leftist sympathies in line with most European academics, which means a virulent anti-Americanism of the character "love the people, hate the government". He can get emotional about his topic, as do all truthers (most recently on the radio broadcast from New Mexico in August, see screwloosechange), and dogmatic in arguments, but he ain't crazy. Of more importance is that from September 1st, Harrit has been pensioned off from the university, age 64. In Denmark, univ. teachers can choose to work many years longer, but there are also budget constraints, esp. at the natural science faculties, in which entire units can lose grants and be closed down. Harrit may have been affected here. This means that I am unable to determine if Harrit was forced out, eased out, or received a retirement package he couldn't refuse. Since most truther experts (Griffin, Fetzer, Jones) are retired academics -- who else has the time to do all this nanothermite stuff or comb the net for more smoking guns -- we can probably expect to hear more from Harrit in the future. Harrit himself intimidated this in a recent talk, that he won't be muzzled by his job as a civil servant. Regarding Bentham and open access, Harrit paid the publication fee from his university research account. But the real scandal is the editor of the journal who apparently was not aware of what she was publishing. For what its worth, all of us are being increasingly compelled to publish only in open access journals, with necessary payment stipulations. But we all need to make sure that open acess doesnt come to mean more drivel out there...steve s

When you say you are an ' Anthropologist studying Truthers' are you doing that in a dispassionate way or could you fairly be described as a 'Debunker-Anthropogist' with regard to your study of Truthers ?

 

[Josarhus]

I live in Denmark, am studying the truthers as an anthropologist, have attended Harrit's lectures in Copenhagen, translated some materials about him and about the Bentham journal, and I have spoken with him several times. Harrit is a chemist, assoc. prof. at the university, an accomplished saxophonist, and has clear leftist sympathies in line with most European academics, which means a virulent anti-Americanism of the character "love the people, hate the government". He can get emotional about his topic, as do all truthers (most recently on the radio broadcast from New Mexico in August, see screwloosechange), and dogmatic in arguments, but he ain't crazy. Of more importance is that from September 1st, Harrit has been pensioned off from the university, age 64. In Denmark, univ. teachers can choose to work many years longer, but there are also budget constraints, esp. at the natural science faculties, in which entire units can lose grants and be closed down. Harrit may have been affected here. This means that I am unable to determine if Harrit was forced out, eased out, or received a retirement package he couldn't refuse. Since most truther experts (Griffin, Fetzer, Jones) are retired academics -- who else has the time to do all this nanothermite stuff or comb the net for more smoking guns -- we can probably expect to hear more from Harrit in the future. Harrit himself intimidated this in a recent talk, that he won't be muzzled by his job as a civil servant. Regarding Bentham and open access, Harrit paid the publication fee from his university research account. But the real scandal is the editor of the journal who apparently was not aware of what she was publishing. For what its worth, all of us are being increasingly compelled to publish only in open access journals, with necessary payment stipulations. But we all need to make sure that open acess doesnt come to mean more drivel out there...steve s

Apparently Harrit knows the two peers who reviewed his paper, have you any idea who they are?!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I live in Denmark, am studying the truthers as an anthropologist, have attended Harrit's lectures in Copenhagen, translated some materials about him and about the Bentham journal, and I have spoken with him several times. Harrit is a chemist, assoc. prof. at the university, an accomplished saxophonist, and has clear leftist sympathies in line with most European academics, which means a virulent anti-Americanism of the character "love the people, hate the government". He can get emotional about his topic, as do all truthers (most recently on the radio broadcast from New Mexico in August, see screwloosechange), and dogmatic in arguments, but he ain't crazy. Of more importance is that from September 1st, Harrit has been pensioned off from the university, age 64. In Denmark, univ. teachers can choose to work many years longer, but there are also budget constraints, esp. at the natural science faculties, in which entire units can lose grants and be closed down. Harrit may have been affected here. This means that I am unable to determine if Harrit was forced out, eased out, or received a retirement package he couldn't refuse. Since most truther experts (Griffin, Fetzer, Jones) are retired academics -- who else has the time to do all this nanothermite stuff or comb the net for more smoking guns -- we can probably expect to hear more from Harrit in the future. Harrit himself intimidated this in a recent talk, that he won't be muzzled by his job as a civil servant. Regarding Bentham and open access, Harrit paid the publication fee from his university research account. But the real scandal is the editor of the journal who apparently was not aware of what she was publishing. For what its worth, all of us are being increasingly compelled to publish only in open access journals, with necessary payment stipulations. But we all need to make sure that open acess doesnt come to mean more drivel out there...steve s

As an anthropologist, are you studying 9/11 truthers as a formal project, with the possibility of a published paper in the end? Or are you simply applying your anthropological training to the hobby of studying them?

I ask, because I'd be interested to read your work if you are doing this as a formal study. If, however, you're simply like us, then I of course shouldn't expect any sort of published work.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Apparently Harrit knows the two peers who reviewed his paper, have you any idea who they are?!

That's interesting, because as I understand it, peer reviewers have a similar function to a jury. You aren't to know your reviewers anymore than you are allowed to have personal friends on the jury if you are tried in a criminal court.

 

[The Almond]

That's interesting, because as I understand it, peer reviewers have a similar function to a jury. You aren't to know your reviewers anymore than you are allowed to have personal friends on the jury if you are tried in a criminal court.

Different journals have different standards. In my relatively small cement/concrete research community, it's hard not to know, or at least have met, your reviewers. I tend to suggest reviewers based on whether or not they'll be able to provide meaningful comments, and then the editor will usually select an additional reviewer who may not be familiar with the work. What's more important is the potential conflict of interest. For instance, you can't review someone's paper if you're also reviewing a paper from that person.

 

[Josarhus]

That's interesting, because as I understand it, peer reviewers have a similar function to a jury. You aren't to know your reviewers anymore than you are allowed to have personal friends on the jury if you are tried in a criminal court.

It is interesting, because the review process on Harrits paper didn't even reach the, at the time, low standards at Bentham.

Usually the editor in chief would be involved, but the review on this specific paper seems to be limited to Harrit and two, for now, unknown persons, without the editor in chief or anyone else with a scientific background, ever being involved.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

For instance, you can't review someone's paper if you're also reviewing a paper from that person.

Rather, you can't review someone's paper if they're also reviewing yours. Right?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

When you say you are an ' Anthropologist studying Truthers' are you doing that in a dispassionate way or could you fairly be described as a 'Debunker-Anthropogist' with regard to your study of Truthers ?

I've done a study on Truthers & find them to be as paranoid & delusional as ever:

http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.com/2009/10/911-truthers-exposed.html

Not a single Truther has ever debunked my blog, because they're too scard to look at it. Cowards!

 

[The Almond]

Rather, you can't review someone's paper if they're also reviewing yours. Right?

Err...yes. -10 points for Almond for failing to proof-read before he hits the "post" button.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It is interesting, because the review process on Harrits paper didn't even reach the, at the time, low standards at Bentham.

Usually the editor in chief would be involved, but the review on this specific paper seems to be limited to Harrit and two, for now, unknown persons, without the editor in chief or anyone else with a scientific background, ever being involved.

Indeed... it's like the defendant and his attorney in a criminal case going into the jury room and intimida... errr... I mean "addressing" the jury directly without the judge present.

 

[grandmastershek]

Apparently Harrit knows the two peers who reviewed his paper, have you any idea who they are?!

Do you have a source on this?

 

[Josarhus]

Do you have a source on this?

It is mentioned in this article from the Danish science site Videnskab.dk:

http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/chefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontroversiel_artikel_om_911

Det er Niels Harrits medforfatter Steven Jones, som har stået for kontakten til Bentham, og derfor er den danske forsker ikke på stående fod klar over, hvilken ansvarlig underredaktør gruppen har kommunikeret med.

Han kender til gengæld navnene på de to forskere - såkaldt referees - der har bedømt artiklen, men han vil ikke oplyse deres navne, fordi de 'i princippet er anonyme'.

Google translated:

It’s Niels Harrits coauthor Steven Jones, who was in charge of contacts with Bentham, and therefore, the Danish scientist not offhand know the responsible editor the group have communicated with.

He knows however the names of the two researchers - called referees - who has rated the article, but he would not disclose their names because they're “in principle anonymous”.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Peer review - Reviewers must be anonymous during review only

>peer reviewers have a similar function to a jury. You aren't to know your reviewers anymore than you are allowed to have personal friends on the jury if you are tried in a criminal court.

The analogy of a jury to peer review is good. There is a time frame involved in the anonymity. It does not need to be forever after.

After the decision to publish is over (guilty =don't publish, innocent=publish) then the need for anonymity is moot. There is nothing to hide when everyone is happy. For example, after a trial is over, a jury member is free even to socialize with a former defendant. Some jurors have congratulated defendants for standing up for their rights against false arrests. Of course, it is best if contact is at the initiative of the juror/reviewer.

If the verdict is against, and the defendant is in jail, (or the scientist did not get his article published) he is not happy. Then of course they should not communicate. The purpose of anonymity is to protect the juror or reviewer, so he feels free to make a decision as he or she sees fit, without inappropriate influence and without losing friends.

As long as Dr. Harrit did not know the reviewers while they were reviewing, that is the main thing. If he knows them after the article is published and their job is done, that is fine. The publisher should never name the reviewers. It means the reviewers contacted Dr. Harrit to let him know on their own initiative.

 

[Baylor]

>peer reviewers have a similar function to a jury. You aren't to know your reviewers anymore than you are allowed to have personal friends on the jury if you are tried in a criminal court.

The analogy of a jury to peer review is good. There is a time frame involved in the anonymity. It does not need to be forever after.

After the decision to publish is over (guilty =don't publish, innocent=publish) then the need for anonymity is moot. There is nothing to hide when everyone is happy. For example, after a trial is over, a jury member is free to socialize with a former defendant, and may if the verdict was in the defendant's favor.

If not, then the defendant is in jail, (or the scientist did not get his article published) and is not happy. Then of course they should not communicate. The purpose of anonymity is to protect the juror or reviewer, so he feels free to make a decision as he or she sees fit, without inappropriate influence and without losing friends.

As long as Dr. Harrit did not know the reviewers while they were reviewing, that is the main thing. If he knows them after the article is published and their job is done, that is fine.

That's it? The referee doesn't have to know the author. Cool. I'm going to send my paper on the perpetual motion machine to my lawyer for peer-review.

 

[Oystein]

The problems are:
a) The editor of the journal did not know the paper was published. She is the judge. If the judge never gets to make the verdict, if the defendant is realeased without court order, then the jury obviously is not cleared.
b) If the authors know the reviewers, then there is no reason why WE should not know.
c) The paper contains so many obvious flaws that it is all but incredible that any competent peer review at all has taken place

 

[steveDK]

Harrit and his referees

In a private email to me in 2009, after i had inquired, Harrit explained that one of the anonymous reviewers made himself known to them and gave him (or them) 14 pages of comments, thus improving the article when it was resubmitted some time later. The resubmission sequence of events remains unclear. Reviewers can always expose themselves to authors when they find an article of special interest. Harrit mentions this, and I myself have also done it on occasion. Harrit also adds that it is common for authors to suggest names of reviewers and that one can guess who they might be. So we're back to "Don't shoot the author, shoot the reviewer... or the editor". In any case, there's always my favorite journal, the Journal of Irreproducible Results (jir.com). steve s

 

[Oystein]

In a private email to me in 2009, after i had inquired, Harrit explained that one of the anonymous reviewers made himself known to them and gave him (or them) 14 pages of comments, thus improving the article when it was resubmitted some time later. The resubmission sequence of events remains unclear. Reviewers can always expose themselves to authors when they find an article of special interest. Harrit mentions this, and I myself have also done it on occasion. Harrit also adds that it is common for authors to suggest names of reviewers and that one can guess who they might be. So we're back to "Don't shoot the author, shoot the reviewer... or the editor". In any case, there's always my favorite journal, the Journal of Irreproducible Results (jir.com). steve s

This is silly.
In the last few days I have read a few twoofies saying they have a source for some info but can't say which.
Smells fishy.

The paper is bad. The judge never passed a verdict.
All we have is Harrit "just saying so".
We have no reason to believe him.

 

[moorea34]

In a private email to me in 2009, after i had inquired, Harrit explained that one of the anonymous reviewers made himself known to them and gave him (or them) 14 pages of comments, thus improving the article when it was resubmitted some time later. The resubmission sequence of events remains unclear. Reviewers can always expose themselves to authors when they find an article of special interest. Harrit mentions this, and I myself have also done it on occasion. Harrit also adds that it is common for authors to suggest names of reviewers and that one can guess who they might be. So we're back to "Don't shoot the author, shoot the reviewer... or the editor". In any case, there's always my favorite journal, the Journal of Irreproducible Results (jir.com). steve s

In a private email to me in 2009, after i had inquired, Harrit explained that one of the anonymous reviewers made himself known to them and gave him (or them) 14 pages of comments, thus improving the article when it was resubmitted some time later. The resubmission sequence of events remains unclear. Reviewers can always expose themselves to authors when they find an article of special interest. Harrit mentions this, and I myself have also done it on occasion. Harrit also adds that it is common for authors to suggest names of reviewers and that one can guess who they might be. So we're back to "Don't shoot the author, shoot the reviewer... or the editor". In any case, there's always my favorite journal, the Journal of Irreproducible Results (jir.com). steve s

To know if the article has really been reviewed, Harrit could reveal these 14 pages (without the name of reviewer of course).
Thereby we will see if the reviewer was competent in the field of explosive or nanothermite!
Of course he can do it, and he will stop the polemic. Definitively...

 

[Leviath]

14 pages of comments to improve an article with 25 pages? Looking at the weak published version I wonder how bad the draft was.