Do Conspiracy Theorists understand the "Peer" in the term "Peer Review"

[T.A.M.]

I ask this question, and I am sure it has been addressed before so bare with me, because I am seeing comments by 9/11 truthers acting with the utmost bravado that we have no idea what "peer review" means and that the "journal for 9/11 studies" is a legitimate "Peer Reviewed" Journal.

Now as a physician, I am continiously reading articles from peer reviewed journals, and have access to their "Peer Review" policies.

From a journal I know well, the CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal):


Definition of a peer-reviewed journal
A peer-reviewed journal is one that has submitted most of its published articles for review by experts who are not part of the editorial staff. The number and kind of manuscripts sent for review, the number of reviewers, the reviewing procedures, and the use made of the reviewers' opinions may vary, and therefore each journal should publicly disclose its policies in its instructions to authors for the benefit of readers and potential authors.


Now I have bolded, within the text, the word(s) I feel are important here.

Now if I submit a scientific paper on the use of Thermite/Thermate in the demolition of a building, for PEER REVIEW, who do you think should be on that PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE?

TAM:)

[JamesB]

A lawyer?

Maybe it is a different process in Canada? :boggled:

[Totovader]

This process is obviously flawed. Instead, when we want to confirm our predetermined conclusions and avoid the constant requests to submit our theories for actual scientific review and criticism- we should just make our own investigative committee, made up of our friends. That way, we can claim we've submitted our "findings" for "peer review" and just ignore the fact that the peers were cherry-picked shills.

[CurtC]

But there are only a few peers of Steven Jones: Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, David Ray Griffin, and Kevin Ryan. I don't think anyone else in the whole world would be considered a peer to any one of these five.

[T.A.M.]

they are all experts on lunacy, so if I write an article on this topic, I will be sure to send it to them for review...lol

TAM:)

[The Silver Shadow]

When they submit their paper for Jo9/11, the peer, in peer review is done by an academic like David Ray Griffin or Stephen Jones, they are academics, but not experts in the field of whatever is being implicated.

[ReligionStudent]

It should be noted that you want peers on your individual subject. Maybe construction/demolition here. Not 9/11 conspiracy "experts"

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Now if I submit a scientific paper on the use of Thermite/Thermate in the demolition of a building, for PEER REVIEW, who do you think should be on that PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE?
The other kids in homeroom, obviously. After all, everyone refers to them as "your peers". It's common sense! :p

[CHF]

Make no mistake: Stephen Jones and company are fully aware of what peer-review is and how it's done. There's no way they don't know.

What they also know, however, is that any paper they submit to a major journal will be torn apart. Hell, I can refute most of their claims and I work in the insurance industry so imagine what an engineer would do to their work!

If their crap is exposed as such then the game's over and there's no fall-back position. So inventing their own journals for "peer-review" simply serves to keep their fraud alive.

The 9/11 "journal" peer-review fools only the dumbest of people - which is, after all, their target audience.

[bje]

"What they also know, however, is that any paper they submit to a major journal will be torn apart."

They may try, however, since rejections aren't necessarily reported.