• 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.

90 Peer Reviewed Papers

Prominent debunker can't add??

JamesB said:
It just amazes me how dishonest these truthers are. I was watching this video of Steven Jones posted on 911 Blogger, in which he is bragging about his Journal of 911 Studies. He amazingly claims that they have published "90 peer reviewed papers", not once, but twice.

http://911blogger.com/node/12469

Now one can obviously make a good argument that what they have is not "peer reviewed", but it is not even true. If you go to their website (since this journal does not exist anywhere in the real world) you can see the headline at the top:

40 Articles

The guy is lying about the publishing of his own freaking journal.
Click to expand...

Lets review the definition of "paper":written or printed document or the like,
stationery; writing paper, a newspaper or journal, an essay, article, or dissertation on a particular topic: a paper on early Mayan artifacts.

Actually Genius, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has 90 "papers" listed. Those papers are divided up into 50 letters and 40 articles. Please revisit elementary school for the definition of paper and basic math...or just stop being deceitful..

I expect more from a debunker than that, JamesB.:confused:
.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Lets review the definition of "paper":written or printed document or the like,
stationery; writing paper, a newspaper or journal, an essay, article, or dissertation on a particular topic: a paper on early Mayan artifacts.

Actually Genius, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has 90 "papers" listed. Those papers are divided up into 50 letters and 40 articles. Please revisit elementary school for the definition of paper and basic math...or just stop being deceitful..

I expect more from a debunker than that, JamesB.:confused:
.
Click to expand...

Your statement is either intentionally deceitful or based on ignorance. Take your pick. In the academic world -- the one in which "peer review" is a concern -- letters or reviews or other brief and incidental communications are not regarded as papers. If on my professional CV I listed the like as "papers" I'd be laughed out of the room. How about this; don't try to defend or justify indefensible statements such as the 90 papers claim. It only makes you look very, very silly.

Oh yeah. CV = curriculum vitae, high-falutin' academic talk for resume.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Lets review the definition of "paper":written or printed document or the like,
stationery; writing paper, a newspaper or journal, an essay, article, or dissertation on a particular topic: a paper on early Mayan artifacts.

Actually Genius, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has 90 "papers" listed. Those papers are divided up into 50 letters and 40 articles. Please revisit elementary school for the definition of paper and basic math...or just stop being deceitful..

I expect more from a debunker than that, JamesB.:confused:
.
Click to expand...

They published one of my letters. It is not peer-reviewed. Get it?
 
SDC said:
Your statement is either intentionally deceitful or based on ignorance. Take your pick. In the academic world -- the one in which "peer review" is a concern -- letters or reviews or other brief and incidental communications are not regarded as papers. If on my professional CV I listed the like as "papers" I'd be laughed out of the room. How about this; don't try to defend or justify indefensible statements such as the 90 papers claim. It only makes you look very, very silly.

Oh yeah. CV = curriculum vitae, high-falutin' academic talk for resume.
Click to expand...

One, your reading comprehension skills and knowledge of vocabulary are lacking substantially to offer a rebuttal to my comment.

Lets take a look at my statement in regards to peer reviewed:

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. Even refereed journals, however, can contain errors.-WIKI
Click to expand...

Lets examine the definition of article-# A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

As you probably don't know, composition means: the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. In this case letters and articles from the parts of the whole (Journal of 9/11 Studies). A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.

A letter is a written or printed communication addressed to a person or organization and usually transmitted by mail, in this case email.

Finally, your bunk is junk.

Newtons Bit-They published one of my letters. It is not peer-reviewed. Get it
Click to expand...
?
I didn't see the author, Newton's Bit, anywhere in the journal.
 
Last edited:
There are journals that have titles like: "Chemical Physics Letters"; "Geophysical Letters";
"Physical Review Letters".......

Articles in these journals are considered to be on a par with papers in journals without the word "letters" in their titles. Some landmark papers were "letters". Papers are often submitted as "letters" because publication times are shorter and some researchers want a paper out in a hurry to avoid being scooped.

I think people are placing far too much importance on this issue and on the question of peer review. Some research is very difficult to review. For example, the chemical analysis of a corrosion deposit cannot be verified unless the reviewer has the same sample to work with.

I have seen falsified data submitted to the ASTM and accepted for publication. It's a fine line between "massaging" data and fudging data...

There is a famous misprint in a journal I have seen: "The data were plotted and produced a straight lie" (instead of "line"!)

I read papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and decide on the value of the paper on a case by case basis. I have seen a lot of junk papers in what are considered to be "good" journals....
 
Swing Dangler said:
I didn't see the author, Newton's Bit, anywhere in the journal.
Click to expand...

Letter to Gordon Ross June 12, 2007
Anonymous (NB: Anonymous letters are strongly discouraged)

You have an incredible investigative ability. And yes, that's sarcasm. And no, my letter is not peer-reviewed.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Lets examine the definition of article-# A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

As you probably don't know, composition means: the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. In this case letters and articles from the parts of the whole (Journal of 9/11 Studies). A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.
Click to expand...



Etymological Fallacy

Swing Dangler said:
Finally, your bunk is junk.
Click to expand...


What does this mean? Is it hip-hop language?
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
One, your reading comprehension skills and knowledge of vocabulary are lacking substantially to offer a rebuttal to my comment.

Lets take a look at my statement in regards to peer reviewed:



Lets examine the definition of article-# A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

As you probably don't know, composition means: the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. In this case letters and articles from the parts of the whole (Journal of 9/11 Studies). A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.

A letter is a written or printed communication addressed to a person or organization and usually transmitted by mail, in this case email.

Finally, your bunk is junk.

?
I didn't see the author, Newton's Bit, anywhere in the journal.
Click to expand...

This whole "response" ranks as one of the silliest bits of disconnected word-chopping since the glory days of, well, whatever. It really comes down to your apparent claim that JONES is a well-respected mainstream publication. Nope. It isn't.
 
Last edited:
Apollo20 said:
There are journals that have titles like: "Chemical Physics Letters"; "Geophysical Letters";
"Physical Review Letters".......

Articles in these journals are considered to be on a par with papers in journals without the word "letters" in their titles. Some landmark papers were "letters". Papers are often submitted as "letters" because publication times are shorter and some researchers want a paper out in a hurry to avoid being scooped.

I think people are placing far too much importance on this issue and on the question of peer review. Some research is very difficult to review. For example, the chemical analysis of a corrosion deposit cannot be verified unless the reviewer has the same sample to work with.

I have seen falsified data submitted to the ASTM and accepted for publication. It's a fine line between "massaging" data and fudging data...

There is a famous misprint in a journal I have seen: "The data were plotted and produced a straight lie" (instead of "line"!)

I read papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and decide on the value of the paper on a case by case basis. I have seen a lot of junk papers in what are considered to be "good" journals....
Click to expand...

While I agree, that some topics are hard for the peer reviewers to verify in terms of data/results, all papers can be peer reviewed to make sure the "science" used in them is legit, to make sure the paper meets a certain standard.

For instance, while I would not expect a LEGITIMATE peer review panel to decide on the legitimacy or authenticity of Steven Jones' samples prior to publishing, I would expect them to review and approve or disapprove of the science he uses in his analysis. I would also expect them to make some comment, and perhaps consider disapproval of such, if he could not show a "chain of custody" for said samples.

TAM:)
 
Par said:
Etymological Fallacy




What does this mean? Is it hip-hop language?
Click to expand...

Yo Yo Yo! Yo' bunk is junk, yo! Crackaz be hatin' on me n' mah G'z cuz we be bringin' da Trooth! Y'all get down wit it dat yo' bunk is junk! You be hatin' on me, cuz I spreadin' tha Trooth, you be hatin' on me cuz I raisin tha roof! Yo bunk is junk, yo!
 
Par said:
Etymological Fallacy
What does this mean? Is it hip-hop language?
Click to expand...

I'm suprised. You can't even call a fallacy correctly. Because my definition of Peer Review came from Wikipedia as of today. If you analyze Wikipedia's explanation of Peer Review, then the Journal of 9/11 Studies indeed qualifies for that definition.

And to end any further discussion of this not a "peer-reviewed" journal I submit this following definition from Cal Poly Library Services, Robert E. Kennedy Library:
Finding Peer-Reviewed Journals and Journal Articles
There is no comprehensive source for identifying all peer-reviewed journals. To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site) or to Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory (volume 5 of Ulrich's lists the major peer-reviewed journals within the "Refereed Serials" section). The Directory may be requested at the Reference Desk at Kennedy Library.Source: http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/peer.html
Click to expand...

Oh and one other thing, the next time a debunker calls the Journal of 9/11 Studies not a Peer Reviewed publication, make sure you debunk them with the above information so I don't have to.:k:

Your bunk is still junk.

SDC-It really comes down to your apparent claim that JONES is a well-respected mainstream publication. Nope. It isn't.
Click to expand...
Please cite that claim that I supposedly made or retract that statement. Well respected is of course a matter of personal opinion which has no bearing on the definition of 'Peer-Reviewed'.

Hey T.A.M. Nice picture. I'm not sure what to think. ;) Although for humor's sake, I liked your other one with Mel Gibson's Braveheart.
 
Swing, if a Holocaust Denier wrote a paper and got it reviewed by other Holocaust Deniers in a Holocaust Denial publication...would you consider it "peer-reviewed?"

Yes, apparently you would.

To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site)
Click to expand...
So take their word for it, in other words.
 
Last edited:
SO your arguement, swing, is that if Stephen Jones tells us that his journal is peer reviewed, than that is good enough?

To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site
Click to expand...

uh huh....ya that seems reasonable.

Oh, thanks wrt the avatar. The mask is not meant to represent you, but rather the truth movement (through their favorite movie hero) as a whole.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom