How did crackpot Electric Universe papers get published in a peer-reviewed journal?

[DeiRenDopa]

The Open Astronomy Journal, part of Bentham OPEN, has laudable aims:

Aims & Scope

The Open Astronomy Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews, letters and guest edited single topic issues in all areas of astronomy and astrophysics.

The Open Astronomy Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.

Yet Special Issue #002, in Volume 4 (2011), entitled "Some Initial Thoughts on Plasma Cosmology", is pure, distilled Electric Universe crackpot anti-science!

None of the five papers in that special issue shows any sign of having been reviewed by anyone who is familiar with contemporary astronomy, let alone plasma astrophysics.

The journal itself seems reputable - it has some heavyweights in charge of the Editorial Board, and the other papers and Special Issues it's published are not the least bit cranky (so it seems to me).

So how did the journal screw up so badly?

 

[BenBurch]

Pathetically low standards. A real shame that such ignorant and mendacious nonsense gets any notice.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did you read the editorial?

These short notes, although capable of standing alone, are meant to act as an introduction to the following articles devoted to an introduction to the ideas of plasma cosmology or, as it referred to by some, the electric universe. The first article by Dave Smith is meant to be a general overall view of the field and its general ideas. The other articles by Donald Scott, C. J. Ransom, and Wallace Thornhill give much more detail of some specific topics. It might be noted that, to some, the terms ‘plasma cosmology’ and ‘electric universe’ refer to somewhat different topics but here the terms are being used almost interchangeably and the whole purpose of this collection of articles is to draw the attention of a wider audience to the possible importance of electromagnetic effects in cosmology.

It explains why the articles were published.

 

[sol invictus]

if I were on the editorial board of that journal, I would resign immediately over that.

the other papers and Special Issues it's published are not the least bit cranky (so it seems to me).

Some of them are, actually. Nowhere near the same level of course, but there's quite a bit of garbage.

 

[phunk]

The Open Astronomy Journal, part of Bentham OPEN, has laudable aims:


Yet Special Issue #002, in Volume 4 (2011), entitled "Some Initial Thoughts on Plasma Cosmology", is pure, distilled Electric Universe crackpot anti-science!

None of the five papers in that special issue shows any sign of having been reviewed by anyone who is familiar with contemporary astronomy, let alone plasma astrophysics.

The journal itself seems reputable - it has some heavyweights in charge of the Editorial Board, and the other papers and Special Issues it's published are not the least bit cranky (so it seems to me).

So how did the journal screw up so badly?

I wouldn't call Bentham reputable.

 

[sol invictus]

The journal itself seems reputable - it has some heavyweights in charge of the Editorial Board

Do you mean Ellis? He's listed as "Honourable Editor", which could mean anything. I've never heard of Corda, but his most highly cited papers have fewer than 30 citations.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Did you read the editorial?

These short notes, although capable of standing alone, are meant to act as an introduction to the following articles devoted to an introduction to the ideas of plasma cosmology or, as it referred to by some, the electric universe. The first article by Dave Smith is meant to be a general overall view of the field and its general ideas. The other articles by Donald Scott, C. J. Ransom, and Wallace Thornhill give much more detail of some specific topics. It might be noted that, to some, the terms ‘plasma cosmology’ and ‘electric universe’ refer to somewhat different topics but here the terms are being used almost interchangeably and the whole purpose of this collection of articles is to draw the attention of a wider audience to the possible importance of electromagnetic effects in cosmology.

It explains why the articles were published.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the subject matter/topic, Skeptic Ginger, but the editorial itself is appallingly bad, when viewed from the perspective of basic historical accuracy.

For example, consider this: "The work on plasmas and other electromagnetic phenomena has inspired some people to examine astronomical phenomena in these terms and this has resulted in the so-called Electric Universe idea as expounded, " Taken in context, this strongly implies that Hannes Alfvén did not do any work on plasma cosmology. If nothing else, this is revisionism of the worst possible kind.

Equally appalling is the total censorship - by omission - of the entire field of plasma astrophysics. At the very least, an editorial on this topic, in a journal with the aims as stated, should include mention of the sort of research covered in WOPA 2010, especially as Dunning-Davies writes "However, after those early years of the century, the emphasis seems to have shifted to explanations of phenomena purely in terms of gravitational effects as far as most mainline research has been concerned." (this sentence is about as close to academic libel - or slander, I get the two confused - as never mind).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Do you mean Ellis? He's listed as "Honourable Editor", which could mean anything. I've never heard of Corda, but his most highly cited papers have fewer than 30 citations.

I did mean Ellis, but also Lorenzo Iorio. The Editorial Advisory Board contains some heavyweights, e.g. Niel Brandt.

From phunk's link, it would seem that the gulf between aims and implementation, at Bentham, is not limited to just one journal.

Oh, I just noticed: Jeremy Dunning-Davies is also on the Editorial Advisory Board!

 

[sol invictus]

I did mean Ellis, but also Lorenzo Iorio. The Editorial Advisory Board contains some heavyweights, e.g. Niel Brandt.

From phunk's link, it would seem that the gulf between aims and implementation, at Bentham, is not limited to just one journal.

Oh, I just noticed: Jeremy Dunning-Davies is also on the Editorial Advisory Board!

Based on phunk's link, perhaps you should contact Iorio and make sure he's aware of this.

 

[Ocelot]

Here's Jeremy Bentham's dead body spinning away. Perhaps he's heard what use his name is being put to.

Sadly when Bentham (the open access journal not the philosopher) claim that work has been peer reviewed that doesn't mean that it's been peer reviewed. http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55756/

 

[Almo]

Did you read the editorial? It explains why the articles were published.

All you have to do is dip into the Electric Sun thread to see what the Electric Universe proponents are like.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

the other papers and Special Issues it's published are not the least bit cranky (so it seems to me).

Some of them are, actually. Nowhere near the same level of course, but there's quite a bit of garbage.

Thanks for this. Could you name one or two please?

In light of what's been posted so far, I guess - concerning these somewhat cranky papers - the question is whether it's likely they were actually reviewed? And if reviewed, is it likely what was actually published likely incorporated the changes the reviewers suggested/demanded?

It's one thing to have a sloppy review process; quite another to have none at all (but advertise, aggressively it seems, that you do).

 

[dafydd]

Was it published on the first of April?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Was it published on the first of April?

No.

 

[MG1962]

I wouldn't call Bentham reputable.

Yeah that was my reaction as well

 

[W.D.Clinger]

How did this happen?

Bentham Open uses a pay-for-publication model. Although I understand that some Bentham Open journals are well-regarded, we have already seen several incidents in which that model has led to embarrassing results. After one such incident, The Open Chemical Physics Journal's editor-in-chief resigned because a paper by Niels Harrit et al., 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe', was published without her knowledge. (It later came out that both of the reviewers for that paper were hard-core 9/11 truthers.)

Jeremy Dunning-Davies, who edited the 27 August 2011 issue of The Open Astronomy Journal, is a contributor to the Thunderbolts.info web site and a supporter of Stephen Crothers (who failed to complete his PhD at the University of New South Wales because he made essentially the same kinds of mistakes that Farsight has been promoting in this forum, and then refused to listen to reason).

Dunning-Davies is also the current President of the Telesio Galilei Association. In 2008, both Dunning-Davies and Stephen Crothers received Gold Medal Awards from that organization.

Dunning-Davies has written an entire book, Exploding a Myth: Conventional Wisdom or Scientific Truth?, in which he complains that the big bad scientific establishment isn't paying enough attention to him, to Stephen Crothers, or to the Electric Universe.

The question of how these articles got published probably reduces to the question of how Jeremy Dunning-Davies became the editor of this issue. Given its publication model and the history of some other Bentham Open journals, I wonder whether Dunning-Davies, Smith, and Scott might have just paid for it.

 

[sol invictus]

Thanks for this. Could you name one or two please?

I'll send you a PM.

 

[ben m]

Bentham OPEN are a series of brand-new spam journals. Bentham is trying to make money off of the journal-running business---and that doesn't come from subscriptions, it comes from author-fees. They're launching new "titles" as fast as they can and sending out spam email begging for "editors". I've gotten these myself, complete with "based on your distinguished record, we would be honored" boilerplate.

So, short answer: Jeremy Dunning-Davies responded to a spam email from Bentham; now he's an "editor". He sends an email to his boss saying "Hey, I've got four buddies that would like to pay your huge page chargessubmit manuscripts"; since its a special issue he gets to run the "peer review" himself. Done.

Also, look at the rest of this journal's work. (Not hard: we have only about ten articles a year---there are 3x as many people on the "editorial board" as there are authors in the table of contents.) I see an article by Ruggerio Santilli, an outsider who's known to (a) file lawsuits against people who fail to cite his theory-that-overturns-quantum-mechanics-and-nuclei and (b) send spam to academic physicists announcing that his foundation has nominated him for the Nobel Prize. Oy. I see a dark-energy "theory" by Leong Ying (no academic affiliation) which is claimed to follow from Santilli's theory. Oy oy. I see something that looks like a modified-gravity paper from someone named Worsley (no other papers, may be a KCL grad student or something?) which, in the acknowledgements, thanks John Duffield AKA Farsight who has a reputation here already. Oy oy oy.

So: it's not "plasma cosmology gets published in a peer-reviewed journal". It's "plasma cosmologists and Ruggero Santilli find a friendly pay-to-play spam journal"

 

[Moss]

I wish some publishers would understand that the pay to publish Open Access model does not mean "vanity publishing in science".

 

[ben m]

I'd like to point out some other oddities in the editorial board.

Let's look at the board of directors of a company called "Steriwave":
Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Francesco Fucilla, Waldyr Rodriguez, Franco Selleri ...

Let's look at the board of staff of a company called "Yellow Energy PLC":
Waldyr Rodriguez, Francesco Fucilla, Franco Selleri, Christian Corda ...

Let's look at the editorial board of Ruggero Santilli's personal crackpot journal "Hadronic Mechanics":
Ruggero Santilli, Christian Corda (editor in chief), Jeremy Dunning-Davies ...

Let's look at the board of directors of the crackpot-award-giving "Telesio Galilei Academy of Sciences":

Waldyr Rodriguez, Franco Selleri, Jeremy Dunning-Davies. In the membership list we see Christian Corda, Wallace Thornhill. Let's keep reading: there's Reginald Cahill, Florentin Smarandache, and (for crying out loud) Wladimir Guglinski.

Who has WON the Telesio Galilei awards? Why, look! It's Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Wallace Thornhill, Stephen Crothers, Wladimir Guglinski, Franco Selleri, Florentin Smarandache. (Keep reading: Myron Evans!!)

Draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is that the Santilli-ites and the plasma cosmologists have built a "walled garden". They found institutes to give one another awards, they take over journals and give one another special issues, and every so often their fake-prestige is enough to get a government grant or two. Bentham got roped in.