90 Peer Reviewed Papers

[BenBurch]

*insert crude "pull it" reference here*

Happy Natal Anniversary!!!

 

[Bell]

The Strippers for Truth Revue and Burlesque Show!

Ziegfield would roll in his grave
And for many reasons!

 

[Foolmewunz]

This, I find, is an acceptable definition of "peer review":
SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts (11). These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication. Their reviews attempt to ensure the quality of scientific information (49), an act essential to reducing misinformation and confusion. Although this process is now part and parcel of scientific publishing, it was not always thought to be necessary.
Article: The Ups and Downs of Peer Review
ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGICAL EDUCATION VOL. 31:145-152, 2007 © 2007 Authors: Dale J. Benos, Edlira Bashari, Jose M. Chaves, Amit Gaggar, Niren Kapoor, Martin LaFrance, Robert Mans, David Mayhew, Sara McGowan, Abigail Polter, Yawar Qadri, Shanta Sarfare, Kevin Schultz, Ryan Splittgerber, Jason Stephenson, Cristy Tower, R. Grace Walton and Alexander Zotov


I hate agreeing with so many people, but to reiterate .... Peer Review is a much abused term, at present. The clear distortion of the process, though, is that the Journal for 911 Idiocies publishes and then asks for "peer review" from some unknown, undocumented, and un-named group.

As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers. But they do publish their credentials and numbers, something Uncle Fetzer won't do. The editors of the JAMA, for instance, have over 150 reviewers available, from PhDs to Professors to Ass't Professors.... They will generally get as many as 75% of their reviewers to assess an article BEFORE PUBLICATION. The editors are generally guided by the ratings of the reviewers before deciding whether to publish, in fact.

How like the above is Fetzer's 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' approach? Not very.

We should also accept that, "peer" does not mean equal in all respects. If one of Fetzer's loons is a lumberjack from Walla Walla, and claims to have done a scientific study on the physics of the collapses, then the peer jury should be physicists, not Pacifc Northwest Timber Workers with an interest in Physics... no more than a jury of one's peers would imply that Charlie Manson had to be tried in front of twelve pot smoking psychopaths.

 

[tomwaits]

To claim that Alex Jones' journal is "peer review"...i mean....wow. please seek help.

 

[Gravy]

Who is on the independant panel for the Journal of 9/11 Studies?

Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. They remain scrupulously independent of reality.

 

[MetalliSociety]

Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. They remain scrupulously independent of reality.

Isn't that how Jones' paper got "peer reviewed" was by his own journal and Ryan? I think it was Ryan and one or two other people that wwork for Jones' journal.

 

[timhau]

90 peer reviewed papers in a rag, 90 peer reviewed papers.
Take one apart, with the debunking art, 89 peer reviewed papers in a rag.

89 peer reviewed papers in a rag, 89 peer reviewed papers...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This, I find, is an acceptable definition of "peer review":
SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts (11). These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication. Their reviews attempt to ensure the quality of scientific information (49), an act essential to reducing misinformation and confusion. Although this process is now part and parcel of scientific publishing, it was not always thought to be necessary.
Article: The Ups and Downs of Peer Review
ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGICAL EDUCATION VOL. 31:145-152, 2007 © 2007 Authors: Dale J. Benos, Edlira Bashari, Jose M. Chaves, Amit Gaggar, Niren Kapoor, Martin LaFrance, Robert Mans, David Mayhew, Sara McGowan, Abigail Polter, Yawar Qadri, Shanta Sarfare, Kevin Schultz, Ryan Splittgerber, Jason Stephenson, Cristy Tower, R. Grace Walton and Alexander Zotov


I hate agreeing with so many people, but to reiterate .... Peer Review is a much abused term, at present. The clear distortion of the process, though, is that the Journal for 911 Idiocies publishes and then asks for "peer review" from some unknown, undocumented, and un-named group.

As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers. But they do publish their credentials and numbers, something Uncle Fetzer won't do. The editors of the JAMA, for instance, have over 150 reviewers available, from PhDs to Professors to Ass't Professors.... They will generally get as many as 75% of their reviewers to assess an article BEFORE PUBLICATION. The editors are generally guided by the ratings of the reviewers before deciding whether to publish, in fact.

How like the above is Fetzer's 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' approach? Not very.

We should also accept that, "peer" does not mean equal in all respects. If one of Fetzer's loons is a lumberjack from Walla Walla, and claims to have done a scientific study on the physics of the collapses, then the peer jury should be physicists, not Pacifc Northwest Timber Workers with an interest in Physics... no more than a jury of one's peers would imply that Charlie Manson had to be tried in front of twelve pot smoking psychopaths.

I think we need to really pay attention to this statement. We're going round and round with Swing, who's got no comprehension of the concept of "Peer" in "Peer Review". All the definitions he facilely quotes already assume that the jury of reviewers are true "Peers", not in terms of social rank or standing, but in terms of garnered education and expertise. So therefore, a true peer review of, say, Jones chemical claims would be carried out by a jury composed of chemists. The writings of Fetzer regarding the airplanes involved would be judged by a jury of experts on military equipment (ex Air Force and Navy pilots, perhaps?). Judy Wood's energy beam claims would be examined by whatever the equivalent expert is in that field (high energy physicists?). Claims regarding the aircraft debris in Shanksville or at the Pentagon would need to be reviewed by air crash experts. The intensity and location claims of the fires in the towers would be judged by fire investigators. The performance claims regarding the structural steel members would be done not necessarily by metallurgists, but by structural engineers and fire & structure investigators. Etc.

In short, Peer Review must be conducted by "Peers". Chemists must analyze works with chemical claims; theologians won't do. Pilots must be the ones to judge the claims of Flight 77's maneuvers; PhD's in philosophy won't do. And yes, those individuals do have to actively read and pass judgement on those works; merely having relevant peers on the list of reviewers doesn't mean anything if they don't take active part in the refereeing process.

It doesn't matter what other aspect of the fantasists works fit the definition, the concept of the review "by peers" is so fundamental it goes unsaid. If they have no juries composed of experts in the relevant fields, then the Journal of 9/11 Studies, or any other fantasy journal, is nothing more than a Cargo Cult implementation of the refereeing process. Peer reviews must be by true "peers" i.e. experts in the fields or topics being discussed. Otherwise, it's not a peer review, no matter what other aspects are mimicked.

 

[Swing Dangler]

I think we need to really pay attention to this statement. We're going round and round with Swing, who's got no comprehension of the concept of "Peer" in "Peer Review". All the definitions he facilely quotes already assume that the jury of reviewers are true "Peers",

If you would kindly do so, can you please point out to someone who has no comprehension of peer review, where the sources I quoted assumed anything?

not in terms of social rank or standing, but in terms of garnered education and expertise. So therefore, a true peer review of, say, Jones chemical claims would be carried out by a jury composed of chemists. The writings of Fetzer regarding the airplanes involved would be judged by a jury of experts on military equipment (ex Air Force and Navy pilots, perhaps?). Judy Wood's energy beam claims would be examined by whatever the equivalent expert is in that field (high energy physicists?). Claims regarding the aircraft debris in Shanksville or at the Pentagon would need to be reviewed by air crash experts. The intensity and location claims of the fires in the towers would be judged by fire investigators. The performance claims regarding the structural steel members would be done not necessarily by metallurgists, but by structural engineers and fire & structure investigators. Etc.

Perhaps you should contact the editors of the Journal and determine if chemists have peer-reviewed Jone's work. I'm sure you are aware of what happens to someone when they assume something and your first bit of a comment is placing you on that path and then one seems to be leading you down that path.

In short, Peer Review must be conducted by "Peers". Chemists must analyze works with chemical claims; theologians won't do. Pilots must be the ones to judge the claims of Flight 77's maneuvers; PhD's in philosophy won't do. And yes, those individuals do have to actively read and pass judgement on those works; merely having relevant peers on the list of reviewers doesn't mean anything if they don't take active part in the refereeing process.

You realize the standard procedure of peer review includes the review first, and then the document is presented to the editors. Perhaps if you contacted the journal, you might discover who is in charge of reviewing the appropriate fields instead of focusing on just the two editors.

It doesn't matter what other aspect of the fantasists works fit the definition, the concept of the review "by peers" is so fundamental it goes unsaid.

I listed several definitions of peer review all provided what I would argue are experts on the definition. Your biased interpretation doesn't change the fact of the definition.

ElMondoHummus-As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers. But they do publish their credentials and numbers, something Uncle Fetzer won't do. The editors of the JAMA, for instance, have over 150 reviewers available, from PhDs to Professors to Ass't Professors.... They will generally get as many as 75% of their reviewers to assess an article BEFORE PUBLICATION. The editors are generally guided by the ratings of the reviewers before deciding whether to publish, in fact.

Perhaps you should determine the fields that the peer-reviewers are specialists in.

I think many of you think that the J9/11S is reviewed only by the editors and hence the brushoff of the definition of peer-review. Your best debunker tactic should be to try to find out who serves as peer reviews and then get back to the thread instead of debunking based upon assumptions.

CHF-Well now that you're back, let's clarify where you stand...
You believe Jones' journal conducts peer-reviews but Holocaust Denial publications do not, correct?

As you continue the line of holocaust denial no matter what context, I have to place you into the ignore category. I'm sorry to do this, but I can't honestly communicate with someone who promotes either directly or indirectly Holocaust Denial.

 

[SDC]

I think many of you think that the J9/11S is reviewed only by the editors and hence the brushoff of the definition of peer-review. Your best debunker tactic should be to try to find out who serves as peer reviews and then get back to the thread instead of debunking based upon assumptions.

S.Dang, editors can be the "peers" who review. It's a more flexible system than that.

Could you address the assumption /assertion that JONES is a worthless rag, in scholarly terms, regardless of the issue of peer review? Thanks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As you continue the line of holocaust denial no matter what context, I have to place you into the ignore category. I'm sorry to do this, but I can't honestly communicate with someone who promotes either directly or indirectly Holocaust Denial.

Wow, there's an offer I can't pass up. If I say that JON-ES has as poor a standard of peer review as a holocaust denial publication, will you put me on ignore too?

Dave

 

[uk_dave]

Interesting that Cters use 'truth' and 'peer review' in the same way that communist dictatorships use 'democratic'.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Wow... can we start calling you Swing-and-a-Miss?

The Jo911S never claimed to have chemists reviewing chemistry claims, structural engineers reviewing engineering claims, or anyone in relevant fields reviewing anyone else's work in those fields. The burden of proof is on the Jo911S to provide proof that chemists are reviewing chemical claims, and so on.

You're defending air. The Jo911S/SF911T are merely going through the motions. They do not advance knowledge.

If you would kindly do so, can you please point out to someone who has no comprehension of peer review, where the sources I quoted assumed anything?

What kind of non-sequitor is that? The sources already know what "peer" means. You don't. You not only failed to defend that aspect of the Jo911S's implementation of "peer review", you proved that you didn't understand the concept because you failed to prove that the review process did indeed involve a jury of peers. You merely kept on citing examples of who lists peer reviewed journals and quoting aspects of the review process, as if those individual aspects validated the whole implementation. It does not. A witch doctor conducting a physical examination, even if he follows all the procedures a hospital or clinic lays out, is not practicing medicine because that witch doctor fails in one crucial aspect: He's has no real medical knowledge. You are attempting to defend this "witch doctor" practice by the Jo911S group by merely citing superficial similarities to the refereeing process. You miss the fundamentals.

You're quoting without comprehension, Swing. That's your problem. You seek paragraphs that you think support your assertions, but you do not attempt to understand the whole concept. Shoddy thinking in any aspect, let alone when you're defending the indefensible.

You cannot cling to superficial similarities and claim that the process is valid. It is up to the Jo911S people to prove their refereeing process is indeed valid. So far, they have not.

ElMondoHummus-As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers. But they do publish their credentials and numbers, something Uncle Fetzer won't do. The editors of the JAMA, for instance, have over 150 reviewers available, from PhDs to Professors to Ass't Professors.... They will generally get as many as 75% of their reviewers to assess an article BEFORE PUBLICATION. The editors are generally guided by the ratings of the reviewers before deciding whether to publish, in fact.

Speaking of reading comprehension, perhaps you better attribute that to the proper source. I was merely quoting Foolmewunz; while I agree with the text, I didn't originate it.

I think many of you think that the J9/11S is reviewed only by the editors and hence the brushoff of the definition of peer-review. Your best debunker tactic should be to try to find out who serves as peer reviews and then get back to the thread instead of debunking based upon assumptions.

Right there is where the Jo911S fails. Where are the demolitions experts on the review panel? Don't quote Jowenko; he's not listed anywhere in the J0911S or SF911T site. So who analyzes claims of demolitions use? There's no one there. Also: Where are the seismologists who reveiwed the "Seismic Proof" paper? None are listed at the SF911T site either. Where are the fire experts who refereed Legge's "NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire" work? There's only one listed on the SF911T site - Arthur Scheuerman - and it's a stretch to ask anyone to think he signed off on a paper concluding that demolitions were involved, given that that thesis is completely the opposite of what he believes (One of many sources illustrating Scheuerman's beliefs: http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/who-is-arthur-scheuerman/; BTW, referral from this site appears to be disabled, so you'll have to either cut & paste, or manually enter the URL).

So you want us to contact the journal editors to discover who's reviewing those theories, when they themselves fail to list anyone in those fields as belonging to their publication? They are already admitting they have no expertise in those particular fields. So which member of the Jo911S/SF911T group can serve as referee for those works?

You're trying a diversion by asking us to go check. They do not list anyone. They've already revealed their jury pool, and it's empty of relevant expertise. Now, tell me how they're truly conducting peer review when they themselves do not list any actual peers? I'll give them this: They have enough psychology-trained members to evalutate works like "Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth". That, I'll concede. But tell me where the Jo911S/SF911T group includes demolitions industry peers? Fire and structural analysis peers? Seismologists? And so on.

Once again, how is what they do peer review when they do not have proper peers with which to conduct reviews?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Wow... can we start calling you Swing-and-a-Miss?

The Jo911S never claimed to have chemists reviewing chemistry claims, structural engineers reviewing engineering claims, or anyone in relevant fields reviewing anyone else's work in those fields. The burden of proof is on the Jo911S to provide proof that chemists are reviewing chemical claims, and so on.

I will let another debunker, debunk you, or better yet you did that yourself.

Foolmewunz-As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers.

Again, you little comments can be supported or not supported if you would only contact the editors and simply ask them.

If you would kindly do so, can you please point out to someone who has no comprehension of peer review, where the sources I quoted assumed anything?

Thanks for dodging.

What kind of non-sequitor is that? The sources already know what "peer" means. You don't.

Oh, so now you have attributed the title to yourself of Mouthpiece of University Libraries and online resources?? ROFLMAO. Please explain the assumptions you attributed to my sources for the definition of peer review?
I gave you numerous definitions that can be used to support the peer-review attribute of the Journal in question. Move on or move out, but don't dare attempt to speak for anyone or anything but yourself. By doing so it really makes you look foolish. A medical doctor 'debunker' has already agreed that the journal of 9/11 is a peer-review journal. He and I only differ on the opinions of the people who publish and edit the journal.

You merely kept on citing examples of who lists peer reviewed journals and quoting aspects of the review process, as if those individual aspects validated the whole implementation. It does not.

Reading comprehension problems yet again? Are you being difficult for a reason or just bored?
Go back and check the sources and the quotes I listed: they are explanations and definitions of peer-review. Plain and simple. If you don't agree, then you disagree with factual statements made by experts in their relevant fields.

A witch doctor conducting a physical examination, even if he follows all the procedures a hospital or clinic lays out, is not practicing medicine because that witch doctor fails in one crucial aspect: He's has no real medical knowledge. You are attempting to defend this "witch doctor" practice by the Jo911S group by merely citing superficial similarities to the refereeing process. You miss the fundamentals.

ROFLMAO again! You are certainly good for a laugh today. I would suggest looking up the complex question fallacy and you will understand why I find this part of your comment quite entertaining and 110% irrelevant.

You cannot cling to superficial similarities and claim that the process is valid. It is up to the Jo911S people to prove their refereeing process is indeed valid. So far, they have no

t.
No chief, what I did was compare the statement that The Journal of 9/11 Studies was peer-reviewed and then I examined multiple definitions and processes of peer review. And guess what, the definition applies to the Journal! Imagine that!
And again, perhaps instead of making me laugh at your posts, you should contact the journal and the editors and get a statement from them. What are you waiting for? Stop being a lazy debunker and get to work! Gravy would if he cared, will you?

Where are the demolitions experts on the review panel? Don't quote Jowenko; he's not listed anywhere in the J0911S or SF911T site. So who analyzes claims of demolitions use? There's no one there. Also: Where are the seismologists who reveiwed the "Seismic Proof" paper? None are listed at the SF911T site either. Where are the fire experts who refereed Legge's "NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire" work? There's only one listed on the SF911T site - Arthur Scheuerman - and it's a stretch to ask anyone to think he signed off on a paper concluding that demolitions were involved, given that that thesis is completely the opposite of what he believes (One of many sources illustrating Scheuerman's beliefs: http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/who-is-arthur-scheuerman/; BTW, referral from this site appears to be disabled, so you'll have to either cut & paste, or manually enter the URL).

Let me refer you to this statement:

Foolmewunz and agreed to by ElMondoHummus-As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers.

They are already admitting they have no expertise in those particular fields. So which member of the Jo911S/SF911T group can serve as referee for those works?

Really? Perhaps you can cite your source. Because frankly, I don't believe you.

You're trying a diversion by asking us to go check. They do not list anyone.
They've already revealed their jury pool, and it's empty of relevant expertise. Now, tell me how they're truly conducting peer review when they themselves do not list any actual peers?

LOL...let me repost this for you, since you missed it in your own comment and appear to be ignoring it:

Foolmewunz and agreed to by ElMondoHummus-As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers.

I'll give them this: They have enough psychology-trained members to evalutate works like "Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth". That, I'll concede. But tell me where the Jo911S/SF911T group includes demolitions industry peers? Fire and structural analysis peers? Seismologists? And so on.

See, now your confused. You've cited a peer reviewed paper authored by a psychologist but yet you are not raising hell because there is no named psychologist who peer-reviewed the paper! What exactly are you debating again??

Once again, how is what they do peer review when they do not have proper peers with which to conduct reviews?

Again, another big assumption. You of course could contact the Journal's editors and inquire into their peer review process. Then when your done, bring the results back to me and I will either continue to support my position or concede. Will you take the "peer-review challenge" and contact the editors to determine their peer review process?
I dare you!
I double dog dare you!!
I triple dog dare you!!

 

[Bell]

[OT]
What the hell is up with you all screwing up the quotes?
[/OT]

 

[CHF]

As you continue the line of holocaust denial no matter what context, I have to place you into the ignore category. I'm sorry to do this, but I can't honestly communicate with someone who promotes either directly or indirectly Holocaust Denial.

Poor Swing. He knows his own logic would demand that he respect the "peer-review" of Holocaust Deniers so he dodges the issue by pretending that I'm somehow promoting it.

How pathetic.

 

[JimBenArm]

As you continue the line of holocaust denial no matter what context, I have to place you into the ignore category. I'm sorry to do this, but I can't honestly communicate with someone who promotes either directly or indirectly Holocaust Denial.

Poor Swing. He knows his own logic would demand that he respect the "peer-review" of Holocaust Deniers so he dodges the issue by pretending that I'm somehow promoting it.

How pathetic.

Wait, did I go through a wormhole in this thread? Swing is putting someone else on ignore for Holocaust denial, after the crap he posted in the Holocaust thread?

Really?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

No chief, what I did was compare the statement that The Journal of 9/11 Studies was peer-reviewed and then I examined multiple definitions and processes of peer review. And guess what, the definition applies to the Journal! Imagine that!

See? Even you agree that you're making a comparison of individual elements. And in your whole statement, you've yet to establish that the Jo911S or the SF911T group have peers who can review relevant docs.

And you keep pointing to the fact that other journals don't post lists of reviewers. But that's irrelevant; the Scholars did. Whenever we ask you all who the reviewers are for the articles they post, you all point at the membership list of the SF911T site. It's not us debunkers saying those are the peers, it's you truthers. I'm just working with what you guys give us. It's irrelevant that others don't posts the lists; SF911T has, according to all prior discussion from conspiracy fantasists on this issue. I can't help it if there are no peers there to properly review articles with. Are you consumers of the Jo911S wrong in claiming who the peer reviewership is? If so, do you care to correct the answers given in the past?

See, now your confused. You've cited a peer reviewed paper authored by a psychologist but yet you are not raising hell because there is no named psychologist who peer-reviewed the paper! What exactly are you debating again??

Hehe... you missed the sarcasm. By a country mile. Talk about reading into a paragraph what you want... I was illuminating the utter lack of expertise by pointing out the one exception that proves the rule: There are several members of the SF911T group claiming psychology training or experience. So the one paper that could have indeed undergone a review by legitimate peers was the one dealing with a psychological claim. I then contrasted that to the seismology work (with no listed reviewers), the demolitions claim (again, no listed reviewers), the fire and demolitions claim (one single reviewer, who's on record as disagreeing with claims regarding demolitions)...

We'll ignore the fact that there's no indication those psychology-trained members do indeed participate in the refereeing process, and are merely listed as members. We'll grant you some leeway and assume their presence indicates their participation. Which is admittedly in contradiction to current indications (Scheuerman, fire claims, demolitions conclusions), but I'm trying to grant your side some credit in this argument.

You of course could contact the Journal's editors and inquire into their peer review process.

LOL... I'm not the one claiming they have one. Feel free to contact them yourself and prove me wrong; they're the ones pushing the claim, you're the one defending it. We're the skeptics. Prove it to us.

I'm just totally impressed by how Swing manages to invert the burden of proof of his claims. Nice argumentation, I'll give him that much. In spite of the fact

 

[Foolmewunz]

Swing,

You're leaving out an important point, and since you're harping on what's left over, you need to go back and read my full post, again.

JAMA does not NAME the reviewers. They do, however, list the credentials of those reviewers, as I clearly mentioned.

Can you direct me to the page on Fetzer's site where he itemizes the credentials, degrees, and specialties of his reviewers?

And, by the way, in a decent professional journal, the editors DO NOT perform the peer review. They are the ones who decide, after reading the reviews and correlating the results, whether or not to publish. There are occasions when an editor has the expertise in a field to be ONE OF the reviewers, but it is never left to the editors, alone.

Further, I posted the definition of "peer review" that I did because I found it to be a fuller, more comprehensive and clearer definition than the ones you linked to/posted.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Nice argumentation, I'll give him that much. In spite of the fact

Whoopsie!!! Where was I going with that hanging sentence fragment? I just don't remember... Sorry for the cutoff, everyone; it should've just ended at "... that much."

Anyway, clarification of the following (can't edit previous post; logged off between the time I wrote it and now):

I then contrasted that to the seismology work (with no listed reviewers), the demolitions claim (again, no listed reviewers), the fire and demolitions claim (one single reviewer, who's on record as disagreeing with claims regarding demolitions)...

What I was referring to was the membership of the SF911T (no listed seismologists, no listed demolitions experts, 1 single firefighting expert (Scheuerman), but several listed with psychology credentials!! ). So unless they went outside their membership, they simply do not have the reviewers available to truly "peer review". Which, as I noted before, is in contradiction to what we've been told in the past was their practice.