[Merged]Peer-reviewed technical paper to appear in mainstream journal

[Sizzler]

The review process was breathtakingly short. Their review policy also includes accepting reviewers suggested by the authors, provided they aren't from "the same institution." Since the Truth Movement is not an institution, it is possible (though I do not know this took place) that Dr. Jones got his own friends to "review" the paper, and the editors did not adequately verify its quality.

I've already demonstrated a passage that should have never seen the light of day, so we know the review was inadequate.

I have a feeling this is going to become another popular, but unsupported, claim; much like the claim of the welder boyfriend who contaminated Jones' dust samples.

And, we don't know that the "review was inadequate" yet. Lets wait for a reply first shall we.

Dr. Jones could show the NIST hypothesis is insufficient through a variety of methods -- running his own models, finding flaws in the assumptions, etc. -- without even mentioning explosives. He's done none of this. All he's done is go over a few nitpicks and wild assertions.

Compare, if you will, Dr. Jones's paper to those of Dr. Quintiere. Dr. Quintiere is equally hostile towards NIST, but his papers have content. He doesn't just speculate that NIST might be wrong, he gets his own data, runs his own experiments, and publishes that. We learn from Dr. Quintiere.

What did we learn from Dr. Jones's paper? Nothing.

You learnt nothing but that doesn't mean others haven't. Jones summarized important literature that perhaps not everyone is aware of. He uses this literature to reveal several questions that have not been answered. These questions are real and have passed the review process adding credibility to their importance.

Regardless of 9-11 being an inside job or not, at least a few of those questions should be answered for the sake of building safety in the future.

No, no no. Once again, the samples in the RJ Lee report were taken months afterward. I told you this myself. There is no reason at all to assume these microspheres were created prior to or during collapse. And unless you make that assumption, there is no conflict.

The strawman is Dr. Jones's, not mine.

Nice try Mackey, but this certainly isn't what I was commenting on. While I don't disagree with your answer, it certainly does not explain your use of a straw-man.

you said;

"Honestly, did we need a "journal article" to remind us that the fires didn't melt steel? (point #8 in Dr. Jones's paper) Hmm? The only person in the world who hasn't gotten that message is Rosie O'Donnell."

By including Rosie you are implicating the straw-man "fire can't melt steel, thus the buildings shouldn't have collapsed." But this has nothing to do with Jones' paper (which you no doubt knew very well) and thus you created a straw man of your own.

ETA: I've already received an acknowledgment from the publishers, and I'll let you know what transpires. I only gave them a few examples of problems with the paper.

can you make a list or post more sections of your letter? You have so far only provided one example.

Realistically, what may happen in the long term is Dr. Jones is forced to revise his paper, but perhaps some variant of what he has now will persist. It'll never be a great paper, but it could at least be banged into a semblance of an ordinary paper. But like I said, he makes no claims, and we learn nothing from its publication. I therefore fail to see the point.

I learnt from the paper. Others will too. Learning is a step by step process. I see great value in this paper for the truth movement and their cause.

At the very least, civil engineers that read the journal will notice the letter and perhaps join in on the process of strengthening the best hypothesis, whatever it might be.

 

[drkitten]

I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal.

One would hope that the strong point of a scientific/technical paper was that it was well-argued and factually accurate. Passing peer review is not a goal in and of itself, surely?

That's like saying "the best thing about the new restaurant down the block is that it got a five-star rating from a local food critic." Is that really the best thing about the place? How about "... is that the food is good enough to deserve a five-star rating"?

There are lots of reasons that a restaurant can get a high rating. One is by serving good food. But reviewers can make errors in judgement, esp. reviewers new to their jobs or unfamiliar with a particular style of food. Reviewers can also be outright frauds with stars-for-sale. (I'll happily review any restaurant you pick, at $10,000 per star. Even for five stars, that's still possibly cheaper than hiring a real chef.)

A few points from my p.o.v. as a practicing researcher.

"Publication fees" are quite common in biology journals, both print and on-line. Outside of biology, they are almost unheard of. So an open-access civil engineering journal with publication fees is not necessarily a scam, but it's certainly a warning.

Similarly, being able to pick your own reviewers is definitely a sign of a scam, but being able to suggest reviewers is not. (The journal editor in chief is not necessarily a domain expert and may not know who the major players are. On the other hand, the journal editor in chief is ultimately responsible for selecting domain experts.) It is perhaps most common for the journal editor to use SOME of the suggested referees and balance them with referees of her own choosing. That the journal encourages this as a matter of course is a bad sign; it suggest that the editorial board is not confident of its own expertise (at best) and at worst that the journal is a scam.

"Letters" to journals are still held to the same standards of content and format of full papers. The usual use for "letters" is to establish priority of findings (I found something in 2007 that needs immediate publication, so I put a letter in in 2008 and a full paper will not come around in the publication cycle until 2011); that Dr. Jones found it necessary to submit what are essentially warmed-over results in the form of a "letter" reflects badly both on him and the journal. What about his findings needed IMMEDIATE publication? This, again, is a red flag.

The quality and tone of the writing suggests that due attention was not paid in the editorial process; again a possible sign of a slipshod journal.

I have no personal experience with Bentham as a publisher -- I HAVE, however, published through other open-access journals, and I had an entirely different experience. I'm actually willing to cut Bentham a break here and believe that they made a mistake. But this is the sort of mistake that, if repeated, can sink a journal (and publishing company), precisely because it looks so much like a vanity article that it might be confused for one in a dim light.

 

[Sizzler]

One would hope that the strong point of a scientific/technical paper was that it was well-argued and factually accurate. Passing peer review is not a goal in and of itself, surely?

That's like saying "the best thing about the new restaurant down the block is that it got a five-star rating from a local food critic." Is that really the best thing about the place? How about "... is that the food is good enough to deserve a five-star rating"?


There are lots of reasons that a restaurant can get a high rating. One is by serving good food. But reviewers can make errors in judgement, esp. reviewers new to their jobs or unfamiliar with a particular style of food. Reviewers can also be outright frauds with stars-for-sale. (I'll happily review any restaurant you pick, at $10,000 per star. Even for five stars, that's still possibly cheaper than hiring a real chef.)

I agree fully. That is why I included the following part in my sentence;

"I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal."

So I agree in that content is number one, but I added that acceptance into the scientific arena is of secondary importance.

A few points from my p.o.v. as a practicing researcher.

"Publication fees" are quite common in biology journals, both print and on-line. Outside of biology, they are almost unheard of. So an open-access civil engineering journal with publication fees is not necessarily a scam, but it's certainly a warning.

Similarly, being able to pick your own reviewers is definitely a sign of a scam, but being able to suggest reviewers is not. (The journal editor in chief is not necessarily a domain expert and may not know who the major players are. On the other hand, the journal editor in chief is ultimately responsible for selecting domain experts.) It is perhaps most common for the journal editor to use SOME of the suggested referees and balance them with referees of her own choosing. That the journal encourages this as a matter of course is a bad sign; it suggest that the editorial board is not confident of its own expertise (at best) and at worst that the journal is a scam.

"Letters" to journals are still held to the same standards of content and format of full papers. The usual use for "letters" is to establish priority of findings (I found something in 2007 that needs immediate publication, so I put a letter in in 2008 and a full paper will not come around in the publication cycle until 2011); that Dr. Jones found it necessary to submit what are essentially warmed-over results in the form of a "letter" reflects badly both on him and the journal. What about his findings needed IMMEDIATE publication? This, again, is a red flag.

The quality and tone of the writing suggests that due attention was not paid in the editorial process; again a possible sign of a slipshod journal.

I have no personal experience with Bentham as a publisher -- I HAVE, however, published through other open-access journals, and I had an entirely different experience. I'm actually willing to cut Bentham a break here and believe that they made a mistake. But this is the sort of mistake that, if repeated, can sink a journal (and publishing company), precisely because it looks so much like a vanity article that it might be confused for one in a dim light.

Thanks for the insight. What exactly do you believe to be the mistake here?

 

[Slayhamlet]

You learnt nothing but that doesn't mean others haven't. Jones summarized important literature that perhaps not everyone is aware of. He uses this literature to reveal several questions that have not been answered. These questions are real and have passed the review process adding credibility to their importance.

Regardless of 9-11 being an inside job or not, at least a few of those questions should be answered for the sake of building safety in the future.

Could you specify exactly what these unanswered questions are, and how they pertain to building safety?

Nice try Mackey, but this certainly isn't what I was commenting on. While I don't disagree with your answer, it certainly does not explain your use of a straw-man.

you said;

"Honestly, did we need a "journal article" to remind us that the fires didn't melt steel? (point #8 in Dr. Jones's paper) Hmm? The only person in the world who hasn't gotten that message is Rosie O'Donnell."

By including Rosie you are implicating the straw-man "fire can't melt steel, thus the buildings shouldn't have collapses." But this has nothing to do with Jones' paper (which you no doubt knew very well) and thus you created a straw man of your own.

I don't get it. What's the straw man being implied here? He mentioned Rosie in order to illustrate just how trivial Jones's point is. How is that a straw man?

 

[drkitten]

Thanks for the insight. What exactly do you believe to be the mistake here?

The acceptance and publication of the paper, obviously.

As to the underlying mistake that led to that one -- I don't know, and I hope Bentham is forthcoming in their response. There are several possibilities, ranging from the simple clerical error (`we sent the "acceptance" letter by mistake and decided to honor it') through inexperience ("we didn't check the proposed reviewer's credentials closely enough, since we've never had to deal with this kind of controversial material before"), bad judgement ("well, the paper was controversial, but we need something that will attract eyeballs and this seemed a good topic") and incompetence ("uh, what do you mean I'm supposed to check the reviewers' credentials?") and into active fraud ("The check cleared. What else am I supposed to review?")

 

[Sizzler]

The acceptance and publication of the paper, obviously.

As to the underlying mistake that led to that one -- I don't know, and I hope Bentham is forthcoming in their response. There are several possibilities, ranging from the simple clerical error (`we sent the "acceptance" letter by mistake and decided to honor it') through inexperience ("we didn't check the proposed reviewer's credentials closely enough, since we've never had to deal with this kind of controversial material before"), bad judgement ("well, the paper was controversial, but we need something that will attract eyeballs and this seemed a good topic") and incompetence ("uh, what do you mean I'm supposed to check the reviewers' credentials?") and into active fraud ("The check cleared. What else am I supposed to review?")

Ok so why exactly was it a mistake to publish the letter?

 

[Sizzler]

Could you specify exactly what these unanswered questions are, and how they pertain to building safety?

For instance the sulfidation/oxidation is very important. It still hasn't been determined if it occurred before or after collapse. Also no scientific experiments have been done and/or published to identify or rule out possible causes/sources.


If for example the sulfur came from the gypsum, it is possible that it occurred pre-collapse and thus may have contributed to the weakening of the structure.

Lets not forget that this is an anomaly that several scientists who published reports on it think deserves further investigation.

I don't get it. What's the straw man being implied here? He mentioned Rosie in order to illustrate just how trivial Jones's point is. How is that a straw man? I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal.

He is implying that Jones is discussing melted steel in relation to Rosie's straw man. This in and of itself is a straw man because Jones is clearly discussing it in relation to microspheres found in the dust.

I think Mackey included it to belittle Jones, and it should be retracted.

Now whether or not the microspheres mean anything is an issue yet to be resolved. They were however discovered in several samples from both Jones and non truther scientists. They do not match the chemical characteristics of microspheres made during a torch cut. Hand waving will not wish away the well documented (published reports) microspheres. A well reasoned explanation still hasn't been offered, from either side of the fence.

 

[drkitten]

Ok so why exactly was it a mistake to publish the letter?

Because it's a piece of (rule 10).

 

[BigAl]

Here's some interesting info on Bentham.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on Open Access, in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access​

 

[Sizzler]

Because it's a piece of (rule 10).

Here I thought you were discussing this topic critically and maturely. Apparently I was mistaken.

 

[DGM]

One would hope that the strong point of a scientific/technical paper was that it was well-argued and factually accurate. Passing peer review is not a goal in and of itself, surely?

Sadly I think this was the goal. "Truthers" are jumping up and down screaming "we're published" and the few I've questioned don't even know the contents of the letter. Nothing in this letter has not been addressed before and most everything was also in a letter to NIST themselves and was responded to. This letter in my opinion is all about being "published in a mainstream journal". A feeble attempt to show legitimacy for the cause.

 

[CptColumbo]

I know what the word initiate means. I asked you what you meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking."

What part of it are you not understanding? The part about the collapse initiating with pancaking, the initiation of the collapse due to pancaking, or where pancaking initiated the collapse? If you know what the word initiate means, the rest should be a piece of [pan]cake.

 

[drkitten]

Here I thought you were discussing this topic critically and maturely. Apparently I was mistaken.

Something can be -- critically and maturely -- assessed as a turd. I admit to using "unparliamentary language," but this is a discussion forum, not a formal communication to a journal.

In my "formal" reviewer's report, I would have instead pointed out that the paper is badly written, inappropriate in tone and content, presents no new material and argument, does not advance the state of the discipline, and is almost certainly not of interest to the target audience of the journal.

On the other hand, in my "informal" reviewer's report -- the part that the editor sees, but that is not passed on to the author -- I might well have used exactly that language. You seem to be under the impression that academics don't know words like "turd"?

 

[Sizzler]

Sadly I think this was the goal. "Truthers" are jumping up and down screaming "we're published" and the few I've questioned don't even know the contents of the letter. Nothing in this letter has not been addressed before and most everything was also in a letter to NIST themselves and was responded to. This letter in my opinion is all about being "published in a mainstream journal". A feeble attempt to show legitimacy for the cause.

The "issues" in Jones' paper might be old but they have yet to be resolved, and at least one civil engineering journal believes they are worthy enough to at least be published.

That is the truth now. Accept it so we can move forward and try to find the answers to the "issues" raised.

 

[Sizzler]

The "issues" in Jones' paper might be old but they have yet to be resolved, and at least one civil engineering journal believes they are worthy enough to at least be published.

That is the truth now. Accept it so we can move forward and try to find the answers to the "issues" raised.

And if you believe you have the answers to the "issues" raised in Jones' paper then by all means submit a response paper to the journal. That is the arena now.

 

[drkitten]

Sadly I think this was the goal.

Subtlety obviously doesn't work well on teh InterWebs.

I agree entirely, and in fact, that was the "gentle" point that Sizzler apparently missed. So in the space of two posts, I've been criticized for being both too direct and not direct enough.

I can't win.

Nothing in this letter has not been addressed before and most everything was also in a letter to NIST themselves and was responded to.

Which, in and of itself, is a reason that publishing it was a mistake. As a research report, it presents nothing new. As a survey article, it ignores a major portion of the discussion to misleading effect. Add to that the poor writing quality and the unprofessional tone, and what's left?

Perhaps a better way of expressing it -- journal editors are not looking for reasons to reject submitted papers. Journal editors are looking for reasons to ACCEPT papers; in any decent publication, the default answer to "should we publish this" should be "no, we shouldn't." To do otherwise weakens the impact of the genuinely good papers and creates unnecessary work for the staff. Seeing no reason for publication, its acceptance was a mistake.

 

[Sizzler]

Something can be -- critically and maturely -- assessed as a turd. I admit to using "unparliamentary language," but this is a discussion forum, not a formal communication to a journal.

In my "formal" reviewer's report, I would have instead pointed out that the paper is badly written, inappropriate in tone and content, presents no new material and argument, does not advance the state of the discipline, and is almost certainly not of interest to the target audience of the journal.

On the other hand, in my "informal" reviewer's report -- the part that the editor sees, but that is not passed on to the author -- I might well have used exactly that language. You seem to be under the impression that academics don't know words like "turd"?

Well that is just a lot of opinion. Obviously the editor and reviewers don't agree with you. Or, are they in on the conspiracy to promote 911 truth too? How big is this conspiracy getting now? I've lost count.

 

[DGM]

The "issues" in Jones' paper might be old but they have yet to be resolved, and at least one civil engineering journal believes they are worthy enough to at least be published.

That is the truth now. Accept it so we can move forward and try to find the answers to the "issues" raised.

Do you believe that a scientific journal is the place to try to find someone to answer your questions? Isn't that just using this letter (and the journal) as a promotional device?

 

[CptColumbo]

Well that is just a lot of opinion. Obviously the editor and reviewers don't agree with you. Or, are they in on the conspiracy to promote 911 truth too? How big is this conspiracy getting now? I've lost count.

I think you missed one of the reasons that they agreed to publish the paper and why it leads to a problem of credibility.

 

[Sizzler]

Subtlety obviously doesn't work well on teh InterWebs.

I agree entirely, and in fact, that was the "gentle" point that Sizzler apparently missed. So in the space of two posts, I've been criticized for being both too direct and not direct enough.

I can't win.




Which, in and of itself, is a reason that publishing it was a mistake. As a research report, it presents nothing new. As a survey article, it ignores a major portion of the discussion to misleading effect. Add to that the poor writing quality and the unprofessional tone, and what's left?

Perhaps a better way of expressing it -- journal editors are not looking for reasons to reject submitted papers. Journal editors are looking for reasons to ACCEPT papers; in any decent publication, the default answer to "should we publish this" should be "no, we shouldn't." To do otherwise weakens the impact of the genuinely good papers and creates unnecessary work for the staff. Seeing no reason for publication, its acceptance was a mistake.

This is opinion just like many think publishing Bazant et al was a mistake. In fact a paper refuting Bazant's model is claimed to be in the process of publication.

At least we know Jones et al are sincere when they say they are getting published.

Perhaps the next one will be more traditional.