Loose Change - Part IV

[Cuddles]

I vote poop.
100% of respondents to your question think they're poop.

Our survey shows that 3 out of 4 people now make up 75% of the population.

 

[Hellbound]

Our survey shows that 3 out of 4 people now make up 75% of the population.

It gets even worse.

My studies show that as many as 50% of the population could be below average intelligence.

 

[brumsen]

But as for papers published by Ross, and S. Jones, I would like to know the credentials of the "PEERS" and how many there were that reviewed the paper. Other wise, I think there is a serious ethical breech in misleading readers that these articles are truely PEER REVIEWED.

"PEER REVIEWED" to most in the science community, adds tremendous weight to the validity of a paper, because in most official, well respected journals, we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it. We do not know this to be the case in the "Journal for 9/11 Studies", so I think they should come forward with their "PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE" for each of the scientific studies they publish.

AFAIK it is highly unusual for a journal to publicise who the peers are that it asks to review papers. Even more so wrt a single paper: it is supposed to be double-blind.

So, how do "we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it."? Because we rely on the reputation of the journal. And for a beginning journal, that reputation first needs to be established. By the quality of its papers, for sure; not by saying who the reviewing peers are.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

AFAIK it is highly unusual for a journal to publicise who the peers are that it asks to review papers. Even more so wrt a single paper: it is supposed to be double-blind.

So, how do "we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it."? Because we rely on the reputation of the journal. And for a beginning journal, that reputation first needs to be established. By the quality of its papers, for sure; not by saying who the reviewing peers are.

However, the neutral, 3rd-party editor that handles the peers that review the submissions to the journal is usually known. Additionally, the people that are submitting papers are not the editors and are not the ones publishing the journal.

 

[chipmunk stew]

AFAIK it is highly unusual for a journal to publicise who the peers are that it asks to review papers. Even more so wrt a single paper: it is supposed to be double-blind.

So, how do "we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it."? Because we rely on the reputation of the journal. And for a beginning journal, that reputation first needs to be established. By the quality of its papers, for sure; not by saying who the reviewing peers are.

In this case it makes little difference. Whether judged by the quality of its papers or by the track record of the reviewers, this journal's reputation stinks.

 

[JamesB]

It looks like the "Scholars" (even Brumsen agrees with the scare quotes) have found their mythical civil engineer. They have to keep their total up with Wood leaving. No info on him though, a google search turns up nothing. Odd that they don't post the credentials of their members. Jage Knepp is still listed too.

Doyle Winterton (FM)

Civil Engineering Structural Engineering

 

[realitybites]

It looks like the "Scholars" (even Brumsen agrees with the scare quotes) have found their mythical civil engineer. They have to keep their total up with Wood leaving. No info on him though, a google search turns up nothing. Odd that they don't post the credentials of their members. Jage Knepp is still listed too.

Did Ms. Keebler give a reason as to why she left? Deforestation? Termite damage?

 

[kookbreaker]

It looks like the "Scholars" (even Brumsen agrees with the scare quotes) have found their mythical civil engineer. They have to keep their total up with Wood leaving. No info on him though, a google search turns up nothing. Odd that they don't post the credentials of their members. Jage Knepp is still listed too.

The reason they do not list the credentials is that they are probably not engineers. Note that they are being listed as 'Structural Engineering' and 'Civil Engineering', not as a Structural Engineer or a Civil Engineer. Methinks the Scholars are puffing up the titles of a few folks who have had a limited amount of interest in those fields.

 

[pgwenthold]

AFAIK it is highly unusual for a journal to publicise who the peers are that it asks to review papers. Even more so wrt a single paper: it is supposed to be double-blind.

So, how do "we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it."? Because we rely on the reputation of the journal. And for a beginning journal, that reputation first needs to be established. By the quality of its papers, for sure; not by saying who the reviewing peers are.

Very often, if you want to get an idea of the people who are reviewing papers in a journal, the best place to look is to the other authors that publish in that journal. Nothing gets you on a reviewers list for a journal than submitting a paper to it (good rule of thumb: expect 3 referee requests for every paper submitted)

That does not bode well if we apply it in this case.

 

[brumsen]

However, the neutral, 3rd-party editor that handles the peers that review the submissions to the journal is usually known. Additionally, the people that are submitting papers are not the editors and are not the ones publishing the journal.

What do you mean by 'neutral' and '3rd party'? We do know the editors in this case. I suspect that neutral and 3rd party do not generally apply to the academic peer-reviewed journals that I know.

Second point I agree entirely with you.

 

[brumsen]

Did Ms. Keebler give a reason as to why she left? Deforestation? Termite damage?

Not that I know. I've sent an email to ask her.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What do you mean by 'neutral' and '3rd party'? We do know the editors in this case. I suspect that neutral and 3rd party do not generally apply to the academic peer-reviewed journals that I know.

Second point I agree entirely with you.

During this process, the role of the referees is advisory, and the editor is under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. Furthermore, in scientific publication, the referees do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus. Thus the group dynamics is substantially different from that of a jury. In situations where the referees disagree about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision.

When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor often will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. As another strategy in the case of ties, editors may invite authors to reply to a referee's criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If an editor does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the editor may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. In rare instances, an editor will convey communications back and forth between authors and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate a point. Even in these cases, however, editors do not allow referees to confer with each other, and the goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to convince anyone to change their opinions. Some medical journals, however (usually following the open access model), have begun posting on the Internet the pre-publication history of each individual article, from the original submission to reviewers' reports, authors' comments, and revised manuscripts.
...
At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications.
...
Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because academic writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialties, and may not be experts in any of them, since editors may be full time professionals with no time for scholarship. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific journals, to each other. Policies on such matters differ between academic disciplines.

source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...NCFIoKkpQKUsNmrDA&sig2=oySVx1SrVH6iSj-TY_HakA

In WilsonWeb, a journal is identified as peer-reviewed by H.W. Wilson professional librarians and/or product specialists who look for either one of the following:

* A description of the journal's peer review process in its instructions to authors or manuscript submission guidelines.

Or

* Notice of an independent editorial review board in the journal's front matter. The academic or scholarly affiliation of each member of the board must be identified.
(Those without affiliations are presumed not to be independent.)

source: http://www.hwwilson.com/documentation/peer_reviewed.htm

The fact that they are self-editing and self-publishing means that they have a conflict of interest. Whereas, with a journal from ASCE or ASME, the journal, and therefore the editor, is independent of the interests of the people submitting the paper for publication.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Been to a bar lately where state law forbids smoking, even though the owner permits it?

Smoking is bad for me though. I'm not saying other people shouldn't do it, but I'd rather not have to walk my girlfriend home early because the smoke makes her feel sick, go home and use my asthma inhaler, put all my clothes in the washing, have a shower to rinse the smell out of my hair and clean my glasses, all because someone else wants to die of lung cancer.

 

[MarkyX]

Good news kids.

I plan on making Screw Loose Change - Not Freaking Again edition. I finally got a working AVI that works with Windows Movie Maker, plus downloaded some extra video editing software for any other stuff.

This version will be high res and can be burned to a DVD.

 

[Jennie C.]

Okay another question about the LC2E video. I have a few of these, but I'm taking them one at a time (besides, it builds posts and with posts you can have a fence...sorry).

If the LC-guys get to cherry nit-pick the so-called "Official Conspiracy Theory" evidence, than can't I do the same to their video? That's rhetorical.

As I was watching the video, I noticed that virtually NONE (virtually meaning I didn't notice any) of the interviews show the video in sync with the audio. This is something that used to drive me Nuts when it happened (frequently) in the old days on TV. I recently spotted it again (on TV) and realized that it had been a loooonng time since I'd seen it.

Is this just a factor of videocasts? But I have high-speed access and other video, such as WH press conferences and even Youtube and such, and I haven't noticed the same phenomenon.

SOOO... Can I believe the words that have been Put Into These People's Mouths or not? I suspect a conspriacy in LC-world

(tongue firmly planted in cheek thusly: -)

 

[Jennie C.]

Smoking is bad for me though. I'm not saying other people shouldn't do it, but I'd rather not have to walk my girlfriend home early because the smoke makes her feel sick, go home and use my asthma inhaler, put all my clothes in the washing, have a shower to rinse the smell out of my hair and clean my glasses, all because someone else wants to die of lung cancer.

Well, it's sorta off-topic, but...

First, no proof of harm from 2nd-hand smoke. None.

More important, guess what? You don't have to goto the restaurant where smoking is allowed. Really, you don't. You can go Somewhere Else.

And no, I don't smoke. And no, I don't like the smell. But I dislike even more having the gov't tell people what they can do with their private property. It's that "pursuit of happiness" thing. I kinda like that thing.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Well, it's sorta off-topic, but...

I know

First, no proof of harm from 2nd-hand smoke. None.

It does make my girlfriend feel ill though, and it does make my clothes and hair smell of smoke, and it does irritate my asthma. It may not be giving me lung cancer, but its still affecting my life.

More important, guess what? You don't have to goto the restaurant where smoking is allowed. Really, you don't. You can go Somewhere Else.

No I can't. All the places I like to go all allow smoking. Why do I have to give up places I like, because people are too attached too killing themselves that they can't go anywhere without lighting up?

You can smoke anywhere you like and ruin it for other people, but why should someone have the right to ruin somewhere nice for other people? You may have the right to smoke anywhere you damnwell please, but that doesn't give you the right to abuse that right and smoke everywhere you damnwell please. Imagine going to the Grand Canyon and have some guy shouting "echo..." all the time you're there. You could go somewhere else. Imagine going to see Buckingham Palace, but outside the gates there's a guy playing a guitar and making some godawful racket. You could go somewhere else.

The point I'm making is that people can smoke anywhere, but I the places I want to go aren't anywhere. They're places I go because I like the place. I can't get that anywhere else, but people can go and smoke somewhere else.

And no, I don't smoke. And no, I don't like the smell. But I dislike even more having the gov't tell people what they can do with their private property. It's that "pursuit of happiness" thing. I kinda like that thing.

But they're not doing it to their private property, it's my clothes, my hair, my glasses, my eyes, my lungs they're affecting. How would you feel if some kids brought stink bombs to all your favourite resteraunts? They'd be pursuing their happiness, but at the cost of a lot of other peoples.

 

[T.A.M.]

So Wolfshade, in the case where they have made their editorial advisory board visible to submitters, do Wilsonweb then consider that board to be the "PEERS" that review, or is that editing board ethically and legally responsible to ensure a proper "PEER" group is chosen to review the paper?

 

[T.A.M.]

just a quick Google Scholar search on effects/deaths attributed to SH Smoke

JAMA INFO PACK ON SHS

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So Wolfshade, in the case where they have made their editorial advisory board visible to submitters, do Wilsonweb then consider that board to be the "PEERS" that review, or is that editing board ethically and legally responsible to ensure a proper "PEER" group is chosen to review the paper?

I read it to be the second interpretation. I could be wrong however. The second definition is in line with the editor(s) responsibilities as laid out in the wiki article.