• 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.

Another Bentham Editor Resigns

alienentity

Illuminator
alienentity
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
4,325
'Bambang Parmanto, a University of Pittsburgh information scientist, resigned from his editorship at The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ) after reading a story on The Scientist's website yesterday (June 10) that described a hoax paper submission to the journal. Editors at journal claimed to have peer reviewed the article and slated it for publication pending the submission of $800 in "open access fees."

"I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told The Scientist. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Parmanto said that he had never seen the phony manuscript that was accepted by TOISCIJ. "I want to lessen my exposure to the risk of being taken advantage of." ...'

http://tinyurl.com/mat8yc


http://tinyurl.com/mbtosx

Watch the truthers scramble to defend Bentham's lousy peer review policy. Just imagine what they'd be doing if the shoe was on the other foot. Remember David Chandler accused NIST of fraud, and Kevin Ryan (one of the authors of the active thermitic paper) is implying that some of the companies who participated in the NIST investigation may have perpetrated the murders of 9/11 themselves!


Also see my comments on Niels Harrit and nanothermite and the resignation of Marie-Paule Pileni in April 2009.
watch?v=jL7xYx8M7GA
 
He may have to wait for awhile to see his name removed from the masthead; check out the first comment here:

Well done! I have had my doubts about that journal for quite some time. Actually, I have long ago withdrawn from the so-called editorial board because I felt something was wrong. I am actually a bit shocked to find out that my name still figures on the list!!
Click to expand...
 
~enigma~ said:
Hmm...so are you saying Bentham is a 9/11 CT? If not why is this here?
Click to expand...

They are 9/11 CT enablers. They published Neils Harrit's nano-thermite paper. This is further evidence of their shoddy standards and lack of peer review.
 
~enigma~ said:
Hmm...so are you saying Bentham is a 9/11 CT? If not why is this here?
Click to expand...

Bentham is the vanity journal that Steven Jones published 2 papers in when his own personal vanity journal was scoffed at. It was supposed to show that they could publish a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal. However, it's been shown previously that the ownership of the magazines employed some rather questionable practices with regard to staffing their editorial boards and setting up the reviews (such as letting the author pick his reviewers).

Now, this hoax paper come out and makes it quite clear to everyone that they don't engage in any sort of rigorous peer review at all, among their other faults.

So, why are you saying that it's not relevant to 9/11 CT's?
 
Dave Rogers said:
The 9/11 truth movement, comprised of proponents of conspiracy theories concerning 9/11, has made an appeal to authority in support of the work of Steven Jones. The substance of this appeal to authority is that Jones and co-workers have published their work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that therefore this work has some scientific credibility. The purpose of this thread is to address that appeal to authority by demonstrating that the peer review process is not properly followed by the journal in which Jones and co-workers published, and is therefore entirely relevant to a discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Given that the work in question is the only original piece of work the movement appears to have done this year, it would be difficult to imagine a more relevant subject for discussion on this forum.

Dave

ETA: See this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4806752#post4806752 for an example of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist making the specific claim that Jones's work is credible for no other reason than that it has been published in a Bentham open access journal.
Click to expand...

So all the "debunkers" here have always demanded that if the "truthers" have any credibility with our theories that we should be able to get published in a peer reviewed journal.

And when we do, as you demanded we do, you label it an appeal to authority, then you move the goalpost and claim that Bentham is not good enough and we need to get published in a better peer reviewed journal, at which point you will just again scream appeal to authority.

Did I leave anything out?
 
It is related to the inability of the proponents of the "Thermite Controlled Demolition" theory of 9/11 CT to get published in a proper, peer reviewed journal. This thread in particular is lending evidence and discussion to the "proper peer reviewed journal" aspect of that discussion, which is a part of the larger discussion of the legitimacy and validity of the "Thermite Controlled Demolition" 9/11 CT.

TAM:)
 
SteveAustin said:
So all the "debunkers" here have always demanded that if the "truthers" have any credibility with our theories that we should be able to get published in a peer reviewed journal.

And when we do, as you demanded we do, you label it an appeal to authority, then you move the goalpost and claim that Bentham is not good enough and we need to get published in a better peer reviewed journal, at which point you will just again scream appeal to authority.

Did I leave anything out?
Click to expand...

You left out the part where Bentham isn't actually peer reviewed and will publish any old nonsensical garbage so long as the author has the $800 to pay for it.
 
An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if it is an appeal to an illegitimate authority.
 
SteveAustin said:
So all the "debunkers" here have always demanded that if the "truthers" have any credibility with our theories that we should be able to get published in a peer reviewed journal.

And when we do, as you demanded we do, you label it an appeal to authority, then you move the goalpost and claim that Bentham is not good enough and we need to get published in a better peer reviewed journal, at which point you will just again scream appeal to authority.

Did I leave anything out?
Click to expand...

Yes Steve, you left out that Bentham's peer review process has been exposed as fraudulent or incompetent.

But thanks for playing anyway.

Call us when a truther paper is published in an long running, well established, well respected journal. Seriously. It doesn't bother you just a little that the editors have resigned over the publication of the bogus paper and the Jones paper? No problem?
 
SteveAustin said:
So all the "debunkers" here have always demanded that if the "truthers" have any credibility with our theories that we should be able to get published in a peer reviewed journal.

And when we do, as you demanded we do, you label it an appeal to authority, then you move the goalpost and claim that Bentham is not good enough and we need to get published in a better peer reviewed journal, at which point you will just again scream appeal to authority.

Did I leave anything out?
Click to expand...

Yes. You left out the inescapable implication, based on this latest revelation, that the Bentham open access journals do not in fact carry out a competent peer review process. Bentham's claim to be a peer reviewed journal is therefore in question here, and the evidence indicates that it has no grounds for this claim.

Let me just point out that if a paper arguing for a conspiracist interpretation of 9/11 were published in a well-respected journal, with a competent peer review process, then citing this paper would be a legitimate appeal to authority, and the claim by truthers that this paper warranted more detailed refutation would be well-founded. Appeal to authority is only an informal logical fallacy when the authority is illegitimate, and the argument of this thread is that this qualifier applies to the Bentham journals.

Oh, and a comment to Enigma: I have reported this thread and asked the moderators to rule on (a) whether it's appropriate to this sub-forum and (b) whether some posts should be split to Forum Management. Pending such a decision I will use my best judgement, which is to continue to post on the thread.

Dave
 
T.A.M. said:
It is related to the inability of the proponents of the "Thermite Controlled Demolition" theory of 9/11 CT to get published in a proper, peer reviewed journal. This thread in particular is lending evidence and discussion to the "proper peer reviewed journal" aspect of that discussion, which is a part of the larger discussion of the legitimacy and validity of the "Thermite Controlled Demolition" 9/11 CT.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

You did not say anything different than Dave did, and your response fits my response to him every bit the same.

"debunkers" demand that we need to be published in a peer reviewed journal, then claim we are appealing to authority when we do and also then move the goalpost and claim we need a better peer reviewed journal.

It's all old hat disinfo tactics

Oh and welcome back from having me on your ignore list TAM
 
All this blah blah blah doesn't fool me for a minute. This is what these minions always do when their nonsense gets completely busted.

It's just smoke and mirrors now to divert from the fact that the credibility of the journal the 911 cult published their "smoking gun" in has now been shown to be as pathetic and dishonest as they are.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
You left out the part where Bentham isn't actually peer reviewed and will publish any old nonsensical garbage so long as the author has the $800 to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Hence the "move the goalpost". That is all this is. Keep moving that goalpost guys. Some people might even buy it
 
SteveAustin said:
So all the "debunkers" here have always demanded that if the "truthers" have any credibility with our theories that we should be able to get published in a peer reviewed journal.

And when we do, as you demanded we do, you label it an appeal to authority, then you move the goalpost and claim that Bentham is not good enough and we need to get published in a better peer reviewed journal, at which point you will just again scream appeal to authority.

Did I leave anything out?
Click to expand...
Appeal to authority is perfectly valid, IF the authority appealed to is recognized as an authority on the subject by his/her peers in the same field of expertise.
One way of establishing this recognition is by having papers published in a peeer-reviewed journal.
When the "peers" are simply cashiers and bank tellers, the recognition as an authority is much more suspect.
 
Addendum to my first post:

Please note: this latest resignation is part of the ongoing story regarding Steven Jones et al and their paper, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'; the questions surrounding Bentham's peer review process, and the resignation of the Chief Editor of the Open Chemical Physics Journal after the publication of Jones' paper. Just for the record.

Too late to edit it into the opening comment, sorry.
 
I've tried to remove the "meta-discussion" about whether this thread belongs in this section or not without destroying the flow of the actual on-topic discussion.

Given I've had to deal with a report about this I've made the call that this particular slant of discussion about this topic is appropriate fro this section. So stop discussing whether it is appropriate or not for this section since such discussions are of course not appropriate for this section and off-topic for this thread.

As a general note: If you think a thread doesn't belong in a particular section simply report it and if the Mod Team agree then it will be moved.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
SteveAustin said:
Hence the "move the goalpost". That is all this is. Keep moving that goalpost guys. Some people might even buy it
Click to expand...

Since the goalpost was peer review, and Bentham has been shown to not do peer review, where is the movement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom