90 Peer Reviewed Papers

[JamesB]

It just amazes me how dishonest these truthers are. I was watching this video of Steven Jones posted on 911 Blogger, in which he is bragging about his Journal of 911 Studies. He amazingly claims that they have published "90 peer reviewed papers", not once, but twice.

http://911blogger.com/node/12469

Now one can obviously make a good argument that what they have is not "peer reviewed", but it is not even true. If you go to their website (since this journal does not exist anywhere in the real world) you can see the headline at the top:

40 Articles

The guy is lying about the publishing of his own freaking journal.

[Good Lt]

I am SHOCKED that the members of the Quote Mining for 9-11 Troof movement would stoop to such levels.

[Mancman]

Steven Jones would never lie, thus your claims are all fake.

[CHF]

So he lies about thermite, lies about photos, lies about "peer-review" and is now lying about the number of articles he falsely claims are peer-reviewed.

Wow. :eek:

And this puke is the #1 scientist in the twoof movement.

[Bell]

Steven Jones would never lie, thus your claims are all fake.

That JamesB has to resort to such low meassures :eek:

[R.Mackey]

Presumably Dr. Jones is referring to the "letters" as well to hit his total of 90.

Of course, we'll ignore for the moment that some of those letters refute some of the papers, some of the papers refute some others of the papers (e.g. Dr. Greening), or that none of them are peer-reviewed...

I'm still wondering just who he thinks he's fooling.

[OldTigerCub]

At over an hour in length the video may not last long on YouTube, since they have that 10 minute rule...though even in 10 minute sections, it's 10 minutes too much for my "stupid absorber" to handle.:hypnotize

[JamesB]

Presumably Dr. Jones is referring to the "letters" as well to hit his total of 90.

Of course, we'll ignore for the moment that some of those letters refute some of the papers, some of the papers refute some others of the papers (e.g. Dr. Greening), or that none of them are peer-reviewed...

I'm still wondering just who he thinks he's fooling.


That is what I was thinking, but how anyone could consider them "peer reviewed papers" is beyond me. One of the letters is my exchange with Jones. One letter is a private e-mail I sent Laurie Manwell which I never intended to be "submitted" to a journal. One "peer reviewed paper" is Greg Palast apologizing for calling Jones a quack. Some elite academic research there.

[uk_dave]

I'm still wondering just who he thinks he's fooling.

Bofors and 90% of LCF

[DavidJames]

I'm still wondering just who he thinks he's fooling.Look around, some of them mingle among us. In fact, I expect a couple may just drop into this thread. :)

[LashL]

...I expect a couple may just drop into this thread. :)

Hopefully not on their heads. They seem to have had quite enough of that in their childhoods.

[JamesB]

Actually I should add, even one of his "40 peer reviewed papers" is nothing more than Jones' idiotic interview of Kevin Barrett in which he accuses Jews of every crime in history, and dances around the fact that over 3 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since 9/11.

Yet another one is that idiotic Flying Elephants paper which they even admitted later was junk. A huge number of papers do nothing more than discredit the even stupider Star Wars theories. Hardly contributing much to the progress of science, but ironically that is among their best work.

[CHF]

A huge number of papers do nothing more than discredit the even stupider Star Wars theories. Hardly contributing much to the progress of science, but ironically that is among their best work.

Does that include Craig Jenkins' 56-page debunking of Judy Wood?

[slyjoe]

This thread reminds me of the "Truthers - lying or not" thread. Steven Jones was in academia, he KNOWS what peer reviewed means. I would guess most truthers (and the public) do not. This to me is lying.

[T.A.M.]

If your going to lie about everything else, why not about your accomplishments.

TAM

[Newtons Bit]

I specifically told them that the letter I sent in was not a submission to their journal. Now he's claiming it is a paper they've peer-reviewed and published? I'm pretty sure publishing someone else's work when they've specifically told you not to is illegal.

[beachnut]

You have to wonder why lawyers can ask for such a great hourly rate?

MM
SPAM, short burst of spam;

No facts, just spam.

Jones is just like you; he makes up lies, like you make up spam. Other than the spam, what do you think about Jones and his journal of woo?

[gumboot]

I specifically told them that the letter I sent in was not a submission to their journal. Now he's claiming it is a paper they've peer-reviewed and published? I'm pretty sure publishing someone else's work when they've specifically told you not to is illegal.


It would be breach of copyright.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Can Jesus be far from Tijuana?

[CptColumbo]

I wonder what it is like to be such a liar, with his pants constantly on fire?

[twinstead]

I wonder what it is like to be such a liar, with his pants constantly on fire?

Pants are expensive; I'd go broke if every pair I wore burst into flames.

[CptColumbo]

Pants are expensive; I'd go broke if every pair I wore burst into flames.Mine only do it occasionally, and for a much different reason. :)

[twinstead]

Mine only do it occasionally, and for a much different reason. :)

Oh, I hate when THAT happens...

[Swing Dangler]

It just amazes me how dishonest these truthers are. I was watching this video of Steven Jones posted on 911 Blogger, in which he is bragging about his Journal of 911 Studies. He amazingly claims that they have published "90 peer reviewed papers", not once, but twice.

http://911blogger.com/node/12469

Now one can obviously make a good argument that what they have is not "peer reviewed", but it is not even true. If you go to their website (since this journal does not exist anywhere in the real world) you can see the headline at the top:

40 Articles

The guy is lying about the publishing of his own freaking journal.

Lets review the definition of "paper":written or printed document or the like,
stationery; writing paper, a newspaper or journal, an essay, article, or dissertation on a particular topic: a paper on early Mayan artifacts.

Actually Genius, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has 90 "papers" listed. Those papers are divided up into 50 letters and 40 articles. Please revisit elementary school for the definition of paper and basic math...or just stop being deceitful..

I expect more from a debunker than that, JamesB.:confused:
.

[SDC]

Lets review the definition of "paper":written or printed document or the like,
stationery; writing paper, a newspaper or journal, an essay, article, or dissertation on a particular topic: a paper on early Mayan artifacts.

Actually Genius, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has 90 "papers" listed. Those papers are divided up into 50 letters and 40 articles. Please revisit elementary school for the definition of paper and basic math...or just stop being deceitful..

I expect more from a debunker than that, JamesB.:confused:
.

Your statement is either intentionally deceitful or based on ignorance. Take your pick. In the academic world -- the one in which "peer review" is a concern -- letters or reviews or other brief and incidental communications are not regarded as papers. If on my professional CV I listed the like as "papers" I'd be laughed out of the room. How about this; don't try to defend or justify indefensible statements such as the 90 papers claim. It only makes you look very, very silly.

Oh yeah. CV = curriculum vitae, high-falutin' academic talk for resume.

[Newtons Bit]

Lets review the definition of "paper":written or printed document or the like,
stationery; writing paper, a newspaper or journal, an essay, article, or dissertation on a particular topic: a paper on early Mayan artifacts.

Actually Genius, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has 90 "papers" listed. Those papers are divided up into 50 letters and 40 articles. Please revisit elementary school for the definition of paper and basic math...or just stop being deceitful..

I expect more from a debunker than that, JamesB.:confused:
.

They published one of my letters. It is not peer-reviewed. Get it?

[jsfisher]

They published one of my letters. It is not peer-reviewed. Get it?

You are all being unfair about this whole peer-review thing. According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/peer), a perfectly valid definition of "peer" is "companion."

Hire a hooker. Show her the article. Viola! Peer-reviewed.

[slyjoe]

Viola - is that her name or what she plays? :)

[Swing Dangler]

Your statement is either intentionally deceitful or based on ignorance. Take your pick. In the academic world -- the one in which "peer review" is a concern -- letters or reviews or other brief and incidental communications are not regarded as papers. If on my professional CV I listed the like as "papers" I'd be laughed out of the room. How about this; don't try to defend or justify indefensible statements such as the 90 papers claim. It only makes you look very, very silly.

Oh yeah. CV = curriculum vitae, high-falutin' academic talk for resume.

One, your reading comprehension skills and knowledge of vocabulary are lacking substantially to offer a rebuttal to my comment.

Lets take a look at my statement in regards to peer reviewed:

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. Even refereed journals, however, can contain errors.-WIKI

Lets examine the definition of article-# A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

As you probably don't know, composition means: the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. In this case letters and articles from the parts of the whole (Journal of 9/11 Studies). A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.

A letter is a written or printed communication addressed to a person or organization and usually transmitted by mail, in this case email.

Finally, your bunk is junk.

Newtons Bit-They published one of my letters. It is not peer-reviewed. Get it?
I didn't see the author, Newton's Bit, anywhere in the journal.

[Apollo20]

There are journals that have titles like: "Chemical Physics Letters"; "Geophysical Letters";
"Physical Review Letters".......

Articles in these journals are considered to be on a par with papers in journals without the word "letters" in their titles. Some landmark papers were "letters". Papers are often submitted as "letters" because publication times are shorter and some researchers want a paper out in a hurry to avoid being scooped.

I think people are placing far too much importance on this issue and on the question of peer review. Some research is very difficult to review. For example, the chemical analysis of a corrosion deposit cannot be verified unless the reviewer has the same sample to work with.

I have seen falsified data submitted to the ASTM and accepted for publication. It's a fine line between "massaging" data and fudging data...

There is a famous misprint in a journal I have seen: "The data were plotted and produced a straight lie" (instead of "line"!)

I read papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and decide on the value of the paper on a case by case basis. I have seen a lot of junk papers in what are considered to be "good" journals....

[Newtons Bit]

I didn't see the author, Newton's Bit, anywhere in the journal.

Letter to Gordon Ross June 12, 2007
Anonymous (NB: Anonymous letters are strongly discouraged)

You have an incredible investigative ability. And yes, that's sarcasm. And no, my letter is not peer-reviewed.

[Par]

Lets examine the definition of article-# A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

As you probably don't know, composition means: the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. In this case letters and articles from the parts of the whole (Journal of 9/11 Studies). A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.



Etymological Fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html)

Finally, your bunk is junk.


What does this mean? Is it hip-hop language?

[Newtons Bit]

I have seen a lot of junk papers in what are considered to be "good" journals....

I imagine that has something to do with the publish or perish philosophy in academia.

[SDC]

One, your reading comprehension skills and knowledge of vocabulary are lacking substantially to offer a rebuttal to my comment.

Lets take a look at my statement in regards to peer reviewed:



Lets examine the definition of article-# A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

As you probably don't know, composition means: the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. In this case letters and articles from the parts of the whole (Journal of 9/11 Studies). A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.

A letter is a written or printed communication addressed to a person or organization and usually transmitted by mail, in this case email.

Finally, your bunk is junk.

?
I didn't see the author, Newton's Bit, anywhere in the journal.

This whole "response" ranks as one of the silliest bits of disconnected word-chopping since the glory days of, well, whatever. It really comes down to your apparent claim that JONES is a well-respected mainstream publication. Nope. It isn't.

[T.A.M.]

There are journals that have titles like: "Chemical Physics Letters"; "Geophysical Letters";
"Physical Review Letters".......

Articles in these journals are considered to be on a par with papers in journals without the word "letters" in their titles. Some landmark papers were "letters". Papers are often submitted as "letters" because publication times are shorter and some researchers want a paper out in a hurry to avoid being scooped.

I think people are placing far too much importance on this issue and on the question of peer review. Some research is very difficult to review. For example, the chemical analysis of a corrosion deposit cannot be verified unless the reviewer has the same sample to work with.

I have seen falsified data submitted to the ASTM and accepted for publication. It's a fine line between "massaging" data and fudging data...

There is a famous misprint in a journal I have seen: "The data were plotted and produced a straight lie" (instead of "line"!)

I read papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and decide on the value of the paper on a case by case basis. I have seen a lot of junk papers in what are considered to be "good" journals....

While I agree, that some topics are hard for the peer reviewers to verify in terms of data/results, all papers can be peer reviewed to make sure the "science" used in them is legit, to make sure the paper meets a certain standard.

For instance, while I would not expect a LEGITIMATE peer review panel to decide on the legitimacy or authenticity of Steven Jones' samples prior to publishing, I would expect them to review and approve or disapprove of the science he uses in his analysis. I would also expect them to make some comment, and perhaps consider disapproval of such, if he could not show a "chain of custody" for said samples.

TAM:)

[rwguinn]

.....

I have seen falsified data submitted to the ASTM and accepted for publication. It's a fine line between "massaging" data and fudging data...

.....

Give citations, or retract.
Your unsupported BS and hatred is getting tiresome and libelous.

[1337m4n]

Etymological Fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html)




What does this mean? Is it hip-hop language?

Yo Yo Yo! Yo' bunk is junk, yo! Crackaz be hatin' on me n' mah G'z cuz we be bringin' da Trooth! Y'all get down wit it dat yo' bunk is junk! You be hatin' on me, cuz I spreadin' tha Trooth, you be hatin' on me cuz I raisin tha roof! Yo bunk is junk, yo!

[Swing Dangler]

Etymological Fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html)
What does this mean? Is it hip-hop language?

I'm suprised. You can't even call a fallacy correctly. Because my definition of Peer Review came from Wikipedia as of today. If you analyze Wikipedia's explanation of Peer Review, then the Journal of 9/11 Studies indeed qualifies for that definition.

And to end any further discussion of this not a "peer-reviewed" journal I submit this following definition from Cal Poly Library Services, Robert E. Kennedy Library:
Finding Peer-Reviewed Journals and Journal Articles

There is no comprehensive source for identifying all peer-reviewed journals. To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site) or to Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory (volume 5 of Ulrich's lists the major peer-reviewed journals within the "Refereed Serials" section). The Directory may be requested at the Reference Desk at Kennedy Library.Source: http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/peer.html

Oh and one other thing, the next time a debunker calls the Journal of 9/11 Studies not a Peer Reviewed publication, make sure you debunk them with the above information so I don't have to.:k:

Your bunk is still junk.

SDC-It really comes down to your apparent claim that JONES is a well-respected mainstream publication. Nope. It isn't.
Please cite that claim that I supposedly made or retract that statement. Well respected is of course a matter of personal opinion which has no bearing on the definition of 'Peer-Reviewed'.

Hey T.A.M. Nice picture. I'm not sure what to think. ;) Although for humor's sake, I liked your other one with Mel Gibson's Braveheart.

[CHF]

Swing, if a Holocaust Denier wrote a paper and got it reviewed by other Holocaust Deniers in a Holocaust Denial publication...would you consider it "peer-reviewed?"

Yes, apparently you would.

To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site)So take their word for it, in other words.

[T.A.M.]

SO your arguement, swing, is that if Stephen Jones tells us that his journal is peer reviewed, than that is good enough?


To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site

uh huh....ya that seems reasonable.

Oh, thanks wrt the avatar. The mask is not meant to represent you, but rather the truth movement (through their favorite movie hero) as a whole.

TAM:)

[bofors]

Lets review the definition of "paper":written or printed document or the like,
stationery; writing paper, a newspaper or journal, an essay, article, or dissertation on a particular topic: a paper on early Mayan artifacts.

Actually Genius, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has 90 "papers" listed. Those papers are divided up into 50 letters and 40 articles. Please revisit elementary school for the definition of paper and basic math...or just stop being deceitful..

I expect more from a debunker than that, JamesB.:confused:
.

Thanks, I was just about to point this out.

This is a perfect example of where "debunkers" are so desperate to make their lost case, they refuse to be objective.

[DGM]

Thanks, I was just about to point this out.

This is a perfect example of where "debunkers" are so desperate to make their lost case, they refuse to be objective.
So you argue that the papers don't necessarily have to be accurate? Just any definition of "peer review".

[Par]

I'm suprised. You can't even call a fallacy correctly. Because my definition of Peer Review came from Wikipedia as of today. If you analyze Wikipedia's explanation of Peer Review, then the Journal of 9/11 Studies indeed qualifies for that definition.


That doesn’t have any bearing on the question of whether or not you committed the aforementioned fallacy.

Your bunk is still junk.


What does this mean?

[Swing Dangler]

SO your arguement, swing, is that if Stephen Jones tells us that his journal is peer reviewed, than that is good enough?



uh huh....ya that seems reasonable.

Oh, thanks wrt the avatar. The mask is not meant to represent you, but rather the truth movement (through their favorite movie hero) as a whole.

TAM:)

Is there a reading comprehension problem that you and CHF have? ;)Again re-read the description of an authoritative source on "Peer Review".

There is no comprehensive source for identifying all peer-reviewed journals. To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site) or to Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory (volume 5 of Ulrich's lists the major peer-reviewed journals within the "Refereed Serials" section). The Directory may be requested at the Reference Desk at Kennedy Library.Source: http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/peer.html

CHF-Swing, if a Holocaust Denier wrote a paper and got it reviewed by other Holocaust Deniers in a Holocaust Denial publication...would you consider it "peer-reviewed?" Yes, apparently you would.

Are you approaching the level of genius, CHF? Again, the authoritative source on peer review...Kennedy Library

The Robert E. Kennedy Library, a unit of Academic Affairs, provides instructional services and information resources for student and faculty teaching, learning, and research.

I suggest contacting them about their definition of "Peer Review" as they are th experts.

DGM-So you argue that the papers don't necessarily have to be accurate?
Is reading comprehension a common issue with debunkers?

Read the definition again from Wikipedia. If you don't like the description, change it.
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. Even refereed journals, however, can contain errors.-Wikipedia.

[LashL]

Frankly, anyone who argues - without their tongue planted firmly in their cheek - that Steven Jones' internet vanity publication is a peer-reviewed journal worthy of anything but derision is not playing with a full deck.

The assertion is ridiculous on its face.

[peteweaver]

The only papers Jones has ever had peer reviewed were papers on nuclear physics. He knows full well what the journal process is. He's just too much of a coward to submit his CT work to a real journal.

[Par]

Is there a reading comprehension problem that you and CHF have? ;)Again re-read the description of an authoritative source on "Peer Review".

There is no comprehensive source for identifying all peer-reviewed journals. To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site) or to Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory (volume 5 of Ulrich's lists the major peer-reviewed journals within the "Refereed Serials" section). The Directory may be requested at the Reference Desk at Kennedy Library.Source: http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/peer.html


I see you’re attempting to claim that this quote is saying something like the following:

"If a journal claims that it’s peer-reviewed, then that means that it’s peer-reviewed."

Quite clearly, however, it is saying nothing of the sort. This, again, is typical of you. You are an extremely deceitful person.

[CHF]

There is no comprehensive source for identifying all peer-reviewed journals. To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site) So in other words you're taking Steven Jones at his word. That's what I thought.

Tell you what Swing - how about you show the "journal of 911 studies" to The Robert E. Kennedy Library and ask them whether they would list Jones' rag as being a peer-review publication.

Because I get the feeling that they're not talking about kook journals. They're probably assuming that there's at least some degree of honesty to a journal's claim of being "peer-review."

Now let me re-state my question to you: if a Holocaust Denier identified his paper as being "peer-reviewed" in a Holocaust Denial journal, would you accept it as having met peer-review standards?

If not, how come?

[Par]

if a Holocaust Denier identified his paper as being "peer-reviewed" in a Holocaust Denial journal, would you accept it as having met peer-review standards? If not, how come?


I think you’re asking the wrong question, or rather the right question but to the wrong person; I suspect that Swing Dangler would be somewhat inclined to approach the claims of Holocaust deniers with a disturbing level of credulity.

[CHF]

I think you’re asking the wrong question, or rather the right question but to the wrong person; I suspect that Swing Dangler would be somewhat inclined to approach the claims of Holocaust deniers with a disturbing level of credulity.

He either accepts Holocaust Denial journals as being legit or he betrays his own argument as to what a peer-review journal is.

He loses either way.

[T.A.M.]

No Swing, I can read fine.

You posted a quote concerning how one might find out whether a journal is peer reviewed. The point of the quote, is for those inquiring about an individual journal. the essence of the quote is this.

If you want to know if journal "X" is peer reviewed or not, ask the people who run the journal, or check Ulrich's periodical index (or whatever it is called).

This has nothing to do with what constitutes peer review, or whether or not there is a standard for such, or if so what is it, it is merely someone telling us how to find out about a particular journal's peer review status.

It does not help in determining if JONES is "Peer Reviewed" in terms of what most SANE PROFESSIONALS would consider "Peer Reviewed".

TAM:)

[SDC]

You are quoting from the Kennedy library at one of the Cal Poly sites and claiming that is authoritative?? With respect to the Cal Poly institutions, they are not at the top of the academic ladder. And from the phrasing, it's obvious that you are cribbing from an information sheet meant to be handed out at the reference desk, or copied from the online site. No one in the library field regards these as definitive; they're just meant to help the newbies get started. What are you, 17?? I've written the damned things myself and they have no significance beyond that.

Your argument shows complete ignorance of academic realities. This is outrageously pitiful, even for your usual standard. Please try harder. This is very, very sad.

(Yes, Ulrichs Directory is real, by the way. I know it well. That's a piece of my daily business. It's having trouble keeping up with the rapidly changing world of serial publications, though.)

Oh yeah, one more thing. Provide the citations for your quotes. You don't want to be accused of plagiarizing library handouts, do you?

[T.A.M.]

the quote amounts to this...

There is no catalog (Book) that has all of the special toys we carry in it (All Peer Reviewed Journals). If you cannot find special toy X (The Peer Reviewed Journal you are looking for), you can go to your local store (creators of journal in question) and ask them if they have the toy (a journal) and is it special (Peer Reviewed), or you can check our Christmas Wish Book (The Ulrich Periodical Listings).

TAM:)

[jsfisher]

And to end any further discussion of this not a "peer-reviewed" journal I submit this following definition from Cal Poly Library Services, Robert E. Kennedy Library...


Took the first link Google gave you (http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/peer.html) then quote-mined it, didn't you?

I bolded the word, definition, in the above because that was exactly what you didn't provide. Allow me to use your source for an actual description of the peer-review process, not the oblique rhetoric that seems to fascinate you.

Many scholarly journals use a process of peer review prior to publishing an article, whereby other scholars in the author's field or specialty critically assess a draft of the article. Peer-reviewed journals (also called refereed journals) are scholarly journals that only publish articles that have passed through this review process. The review process helps ensure that the published articles reflect solid scholarship in their fields.

Notice the need for actual scholars doing critical assessment? Did you notice the final sentence as to purpose? The Journal of 911 Studies comes up lacking both on method and result.

[Swing Dangler]

He either accepts Holocaust Denial journals as being legit or he betrays his own argument as to what a peer-review journal is.

He loses either way.

CHF, is there a holocaust denial degree you can earn? Or are there credentials in a holocaust denial class you have taken? If not, the answer to your question is no. A peer review whether it appears in print, a combination of print and electronic forms, or only in electronic form, a peer reviewed journal is one in which each feature article has been examined by people with credentials in the article's field of study before it is published.

I have a few questions for you, CHF:
1. Are you antisemitic?

2.If not, why are you promoting antisemitism, CHF, in this thread?

3.Do you hate the state of Israel or Jews in general?

4. If you don't, why would you promote holocaust denial, CHF?

5. How do you know if Holocaust Denial Peer Reviewed Journals exist? Have you bee reading them?

If you want to tow the anti-semitic line further, I will have to ignore you. I would hate to do that as we have some excellent conversations, but your closet attempt at labeling me despite the facts is something you need not attempt as Sword of Truth has tried multiple times and his deceitful tactics have been reveled time and time again along with the fact that I do believe the Holocaust happened. And yes, I realize you don't care if I put you on ignore or not but considering the discussions we have had, I'm giving you an early warning in an attempt to preserve future conversations I might share with you.


SDC-Your argument shows complete ignorance of academic realities. This is outrageously pitiful, even for your usual standard. Please try harder. This is very, very sad.

I notice you type a lot and provide bizarre opinions.

1.Can you provide any facts disputing the library or can I expect another personal opinion statement and character attack?

2. Can you provide an authoritative source on the definition of peer-review?

3.You realize you haven't don't that yet, right?

Is this an authoritative source on the definition of peer-review or can I expect another character attack from what appears to be a 17 year old?

Applied Health Sciences LIBRARY
146 Library, 1408 West Gregory Drive Urbana, IL 61801
217/333-3615, FAX 217/333-8384

Q: What is a peer-reviewed journal?

A: A scholarly periodical which requires that each article submitted for publication be judged by an independent panel of experts (scholarly or scientific peers). Articles not approved by a majority of these peers are not accepted for publication by the journal.

Peer-reviewed journals can be identified by their editorial statements or instructions to authors (usually in first few pages of the journal or at the end), and also by consulting Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory, available online at: http://www.library.uiuc.edu/orr/get.php?instid=258215

Is Walden Library an authoritative source on the definition of peer review?
What is a scholarly journal?
Scholarly journals have varied characteristics; not every journal has all the characteristics and different journals have different values. Usually the author is a scholar/researcher/professor/expert in the field, the journal has some sort of review process in place and focuses on content rather than advertising, and it includes research articles whose audience is primarily scholars/researchers/experts.


What is a Peer Reviewed Article?
A peer-reviewed article must pass the scrutiny of reviewers who are experts in the field or on the research topic of the article. Source: Walden Library (http://www.lib.waldenu.edu/serials.html)

Or how about Campus Library Lingo from here (http://library.uwb.edu/tour/LibraryLingo.html):

Peer review – When documents such as articles or books are reviewed by those in the author’s field of work. Many scholarly journals are peer reviewed. To be accepted for publication in a given journal the author of an article must submit his or her article to be reviewed, usually anonymously, by a panel of experts in the field or the journal's editorial board.

Does Dictionary.com have it right when they define peer-review as:
peer review–noun-evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in the same occupation, profession, or industry.

Does the University of Nevada, Reno Libraries have it correct when they answer this question?
What is a scholarly or peer reviewed journal?

Scholarly and professional journals feature articles written by researchers and practitioners in a particular subject area. The authors often have particular specialties. Peer groups of researchers, scholars and professionals within a specific discipline are the audience for scholarly literature.

Peer review is a well-accepted indicator of quality scholarship. It is the process by which an author's peers read a paper submitted for publication. A number of recognized researchers in the field will evaluate a manuscript and recommend its publication, revision, or rejection. Articles accepted for publication through a peer review process implicitly meet the discipline's expected standards of expertise.

If you want to attack the Journal of 9/11 Studies, I encourage you to read this site (http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html) and then you might have a leg to stand on.

[SDC]

SDang, it is with some pride and yet humility that I see I have goaded you into actually looking at a few library sites beyond Cal Poly. Comrades! (This is addressed to my fellow librarians.) Take care of this poor wayfarer; be gentle with him; he is new to our world of learning and information.

But you know, some posts back Apollo20 made the good point that the term "peer review" is being used here to excess. It's one key element in the constant argument and conversation which is the academic world, but far from the only standard.

The real point is that JONES is a bad joke. Don't bother trying to defend it. (Nature? You drag Nature into this? Oh yeah? Well what about its great rival -- NURTURE.)

[CHF]

CHF, is there a holocaust denial degree you can earn? Or are there credentials in a holocaust denial class you have taken? If not, the answer to your question is no.

As far as I know there's no degree in non-conventional demolitions either. So I guess that alone means Steven Jones' journal is crap, huh?

After all, the entire twoofer position on demolitions rests on methods that have never been employed before or since.

I have a few questions for you, CHF:
1. Are you antisemitic?
2.If not, why are you promoting antisemitism, CHF, in this thread?
3.Do you hate the state of Israel or Jews in general?
4. If you don't, why would you promote holocaust denial, CHF?
5. How do you know if Holocaust Denial Peer Reviewed Journals exist? Have you bee reading them?Wow, that's pathetic. I'm using Holocaust Denial to put your idea of "peer-review" to the test, not endorsing such tripe.

Yeah, there are Holocaust Denial journals out there, such as the Barnes Historical Review - a kook publication that also pretends to publish work that has passed some kind of serious review.

If you think Jones' journal is an honest and serious peer-review publication then there's no reason why Holocaust Denial journals aren't as well.

I'm simply using your own "logic" against you, Swing. And you don't seem to know how to handle it.

By the way, wanna know how it is that I'm aware of Holocaust Denial publications? Because so many twoofers reference sources linked to them.

[rwguinn]

SDang, it is with some pride and yet humility that I see I have goaded you into actually looking at a few library sites beyond Cal Poly. Comrades! (This is addressed to my fellow librarians.) Take care of this poor wayfarer; be gentle with him; he is new to our world of learning and information. :)
But will he continue the journey? Or will he place the queries in the "too hard" bag?

But you know, some posts back Apollo20 made the good point that the term "peer review" is being used here to excess. It's one key element in the constant argument and conversation which is the academic world, but far from the only standard.
There are aty least 2 types of "Peer review".
Most people here think the formal one--submission to a learned journal, going through the formal process, and seeing print eventually--is the only one. It is not.
All of the papers and essays published on 9-11 have been peer reviewed. In the cases of Bazant and Zhou, it was formal. For NewtonsBit, R. Mackey, and others here, it was by qualified engineers and scientists who can follow the math and reasoning, and who have offered criticism and clarification, as well as back-up and affirmation (or suggested further research). Greening's stuff has also undergone the same review, and been found to be good (in the cases where he is a scientist) or doubtful (in his truther personna).
Jones, Fetzer, Judy Woods, bofors, et al, have undergone the same peer review, by qualified engineers and scientists, and have been found wanting. The fact that they consider their peers to be people of a similar mindset, regardless of actual knowledge and/or qualification, does not make them peers. It is the same process that made someone here redefine "Skeptic" as a wanna-be critical thinker, while a "sceptic" is the real thing, and to hell with the dictionary.
And while I wish I were a peer of Mackey and NB, my strain theory and materials science background is lacking--but my practical, practice, and systems analysis skills are not.



The real point is that JONES is a bad joke. Don't bother trying to defend it. (Nature? You drag Nature into this? Oh yeah? Well what about its great rival -- NURTURE.)

[T.A.M.]

OK, I'll admit it...

JONES is a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL.

It is a journal that publishes ridiculous baseless theories that lack merit or fact, and I am sure the Peer Review Pool is full of people who are experts in "ridiculous baseless theories that lack merit or fact".

That is why I am astounded that NB's "letter" was actually published by them.

TAM:)

[Par]

Peer-reviewed journals can be identified by their editorial statements or instructions to author[/B]s (usually in first few pages of the journal or at the end), and also by consulting Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory, available online at: http://www.library.uiuc.edu/orr/get.php?instid=258215


I see you’re attempting to claim that this quote is saying something like the following:

"If a journal claims that it’s peer-reviewed, then that means that it’s peer-reviewed."

Quite clearly, however, it is saying nothing of the sort. This, again, is typical of you. You are an extremely deceitful person.

[Par]

CHF, is there a holocaust denial degree you can earn? Or are there credentials in a holocaust denial class you have taken? If not, the answer to your question is no. A peer review whether it appears in print, a combination of print and electronic forms, or only in electronic form, a peer reviewed journal is one in which each feature article has been examined by people with credentials in the article's field of study before it is published.


No, there are no such things as degrees in Holocaust denial. Nor, however, are there such things as degrees in 9/11 denial. Thus, by your own measure, Jones’ effort cannot be a genuinely peer-reviewed publication.

[CHF]

No, there are no such things as degrees in Holocaust denial. Nor, however, are there such things as degrees in 9/11 denial. Thus, by your own measure, Jones’ effort cannot be a genuinely peer-reviewed publication.

I love it when twoofers are stumped by the idiocy of their own logic. :D

[JimBenArm]

I just have a couple of questions about these papers.

Are they one- or two-ply?

And does Mr. Whiffle care if you squeeze them?

[SDC]

RWGuinn copied me on this:
Originally Posted by SDC http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3145758#post3145758)

The real point is that JONES is a bad joke. Don't bother trying to defend it. (Nature? You drag Nature into this? Oh yeah? Well what about its great rival -- NURTURE.)



My little joke. Some years ago, a friend who is a science journalist proudly told me he'd been offered an editor's position by the journal "Nature." I advised him to try and get a little more in the way of salary and benefits by telling them he'd received a counter-offer from "Nurture." He says he still quotes me.

[Sparky]

Can Jesus be far from Tijuana?

He's downstairs.

[BenBurch]

Plus, this is some strange new definition of the word "peer", of which I was previously unaware...

[CHF]

And Swing Dangler abandons yet another thread.

Didn't see that coming :rolleyes:

[Swing Dangler]

OK, I'll admit it...

JONES is a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL.

It is a journal that publishes ridiculous baseless theories that lack merit or fact, and I am sure the Peer Review Pool is full of people who are experts in "ridiculous baseless theories that lack merit or fact".

That is why I am astounded that NB's "letter" was actually published by them.

TAM:)

Well TAM, despite your opinion, you are at least one JREF'er who accepts the facts instead of trying to twist them into lies.

CHF And Swing Dangler abandons yet another thread.

Didn't see that coming

Not really, I just got busy, pal. :)

[jsfisher]

Well TAM, despite your opinion, you are at least one JREF'er who accepts the facts instead of trying to twist them into lies.


So, you agree with TAM's assessment it consists of "experts in 'ridiculous baseless theories that lack merit or fact'." Excellent!

[BenBurch]

Good!

I hope they a printed on soft paper because we were almost out of T.P.

[Swing Dangler]

So, you agree with TAM's assessment it consists of "experts in 'ridiculous baseless theories that lack merit or fact'." Excellent!

Ahhh geez. Debunker reading comprehension problems. In my last comment, I stated it was TAM's opinion. Nowhere did I agree with his opinion. Back to elementary school and focus on reading comprehension this time.

[Good Lt]

you are at least one JREF'er who accepts the facts instead of trying to twist them into lies.
Unfortunately for you, his opinion and the facts are one and the same.

The 'peers' who review Troofer 'journals' are experts in 'ridiculous baseless theories that lack merit or fact.'

You just pwned yourself.

[VespaGuy]

Q: What is a peer-reviewed journal?

A: A scholarly periodical which requires that each article submitted for publication be judged by an independent panel of experts (scholarly or scientific peers). Articles not approved by a majority of these peers are not accepted for publication by the journal.

Who is on the independant panel for the Journal of 9/11 Studies?

[CHF]

Not really, I just got busy, pal. :)

Well now that you're back, let's clarify where you stand...

You believe Jones' journal conducts peer-reviews but Holocaust Denial publications do not, correct?

[jsfisher]

Ahhh geez. Debunker reading comprehension problems.


As Good Lt. has already pointed out, the comprehension problem is with you, not me.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm waiting for StrippersFor911truth.org to have a stripper write a paper so the other strippers can peer review it.

[uk_dave]

I'm waiting for StrippersFor911truth.org to have a stripper write a paper so the other strippers can peer review it.

Or perhaps revue it.... that would be more fun.:D

[JimBenArm]

Or perhaps revue it.... that would be more fun.:D
The Strippers for Truth Revue and Burlesque Show!

[jhunter1163]

*insert crude "pull it" reference here*

[BenBurch]

The Strippers for Truth Revue and Burlesque Show!

You know, I know some people in the modern Burlesque movement... One of whom has a Godzilla costume... We could set up a Cardboard Empire State Building... And then the truther part of it is when another woman with (only) a protest sign comes on stage and says, "No steel frame building has ever collapsed from a T-Rex with great boobs in the History of The Planet!!!"

[BenBurch]

*insert crude "pull it" reference here*

Happy Natal Anniversary!!!

[Bell]

The Strippers for Truth Revue and Burlesque Show!

Ziegfield would roll in his grave :eek:
And for many reasons!

[Foolmewunz]

This, I find, is an acceptable definition of "peer review":
SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts (11). These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication. Their reviews attempt to ensure the quality of scientific information (49), an act essential to reducing misinformation and confusion. Although this process is now part and parcel of scientific publishing, it was not always thought to be necessary.
Article: The Ups and Downs of Peer Review
ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGICAL EDUCATION VOL. 31:145-152, 2007 © 2007 Authors: Dale J. Benos, Edlira Bashari, Jose M. Chaves, Amit Gaggar, Niren Kapoor, Martin LaFrance, Robert Mans, David Mayhew, Sara McGowan, Abigail Polter, Yawar Qadri, Shanta Sarfare, Kevin Schultz, Ryan Splittgerber, Jason Stephenson, Cristy Tower, R. Grace Walton and Alexander Zotov


I hate agreeing with so many people, but to reiterate .... Peer Review is a much abused term, at present. The clear distortion of the process, though, is that the Journal for 911 Idiocies publishes and then asks for "peer review" from some unknown, undocumented, and un-named group.

As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers. But they do publish their credentials and numbers, something Uncle Fetzer won't do. The editors of the JAMA, for instance, have over 150 reviewers available, from PhDs to Professors to Ass't Professors.... They will generally get as many as 75% of their reviewers to assess an article BEFORE PUBLICATION. The editors are generally guided by the ratings of the reviewers before deciding whether to publish, in fact.

How like the above is Fetzer's 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' approach? Not very.

We should also accept that, "peer" does not mean equal in all respects. If one of Fetzer's loons is a lumberjack from Walla Walla, and claims to have done a scientific study on the physics of the collapses, then the peer jury should be physicists, not Pacifc Northwest Timber Workers with an interest in Physics... no more than a jury of one's peers would imply that Charlie Manson had to be tried in front of twelve pot smoking psychopaths.

[tomwaits]

To claim that Alex Jones' journal is "peer review"...i mean....wow. please seek help.

[Gravy]

Who is on the independant panel for the Journal of 9/11 Studies?Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. They remain scrupulously independent of reality.

[MetalliSociety]

Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. They remain scrupulously independent of reality.

Isn't that how Jones' paper got "peer reviewed" was by his own journal and Ryan? I think it was Ryan and one or two other people that wwork for Jones' journal.

[timhau]

90 peer reviewed papers in a rag, 90 peer reviewed papers.
Take one apart, with the debunking art, 89 peer reviewed papers in a rag.

89 peer reviewed papers in a rag, 89 peer reviewed papers...

[ElMondoHummus]

This, I find, is an acceptable definition of "peer review":
SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts (11). These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication. Their reviews attempt to ensure the quality of scientific information (49), an act essential to reducing misinformation and confusion. Although this process is now part and parcel of scientific publishing, it was not always thought to be necessary.
Article: The Ups and Downs of Peer Review
ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGICAL EDUCATION VOL. 31:145-152, 2007 © 2007 Authors: Dale J. Benos, Edlira Bashari, Jose M. Chaves, Amit Gaggar, Niren Kapoor, Martin LaFrance, Robert Mans, David Mayhew, Sara McGowan, Abigail Polter, Yawar Qadri, Shanta Sarfare, Kevin Schultz, Ryan Splittgerber, Jason Stephenson, Cristy Tower, R. Grace Walton and Alexander Zotov


I hate agreeing with so many people, but to reiterate .... Peer Review is a much abused term, at present. The clear distortion of the process, though, is that the Journal for 911 Idiocies publishes and then asks for "peer review" from some unknown, undocumented, and un-named group.

As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers. But they do publish their credentials and numbers, something Uncle Fetzer won't do. The editors of the JAMA, for instance, have over 150 reviewers available, from PhDs to Professors to Ass't Professors.... They will generally get as many as 75% of their reviewers to assess an article BEFORE PUBLICATION. The editors are generally guided by the ratings of the reviewers before deciding whether to publish, in fact.

How like the above is Fetzer's 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' approach? Not very.

We should also accept that, "peer" does not mean equal in all respects. If one of Fetzer's loons is a lumberjack from Walla Walla, and claims to have done a scientific study on the physics of the collapses, then the peer jury should be physicists, not Pacifc Northwest Timber Workers with an interest in Physics... no more than a jury of one's peers would imply that Charlie Manson had to be tried in front of twelve pot smoking psychopaths.


I think we need to really pay attention to this statement. We're going round and round with Swing, who's got no comprehension of the concept of "Peer" in "Peer Review". All the definitions he facilely quotes already assume that the jury of reviewers are true "Peers", not in terms of social rank or standing, but in terms of garnered education and expertise. So therefore, a true peer review of, say, Jones chemical claims would be carried out by a jury composed of chemists. The writings of Fetzer regarding the airplanes involved would be judged by a jury of experts on military equipment (ex Air Force and Navy pilots, perhaps?). Judy Wood's energy beam claims would be examined by whatever the equivalent expert is in that field (high energy physicists?). Claims regarding the aircraft debris in Shanksville or at the Pentagon would need to be reviewed by air crash experts. The intensity and location claims of the fires in the towers would be judged by fire investigators. The performance claims regarding the structural steel members would be done not necessarily by metallurgists, but by structural engineers and fire & structure investigators. Etc.

In short, Peer Review must be conducted by "Peers". Chemists must analyze works with chemical claims; theologians won't do. Pilots must be the ones to judge the claims of Flight 77's maneuvers; PhD's in philosophy won't do. And yes, those individuals do have to actively read and pass judgement on those works; merely having relevant peers on the list of reviewers doesn't mean anything if they don't take active part in the refereeing process.

It doesn't matter what other aspect of the fantasists works fit the definition, the concept of the review "by peers" is so fundamental it goes unsaid. If they have no juries composed of experts in the relevant fields, then the Journal of 9/11 Studies, or any other fantasy journal, is nothing more than a Cargo Cult implementation of the refereeing process. Peer reviews must be by true "peers" i.e. experts in the fields or topics being discussed. Otherwise, it's not a peer review, no matter what other aspects are mimicked.

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE]I think we need to really pay attention to this statement. We're going round and round with Swing, who's got no comprehension of the concept of "Peer" in "Peer Review". All the definitions he facilely quotes already assume that the jury of reviewers are true "Peers",
If you would kindly do so, can you please point out to someone who has no comprehension of peer review, where the sources I quoted assumed anything?

not in terms of social rank or standing, but in terms of garnered education and expertise. So therefore, a true peer review of, say, Jones chemical claims would be carried out by a jury composed of chemists. The writings of Fetzer regarding the airplanes involved would be judged by a jury of experts on military equipment (ex Air Force and Navy pilots, perhaps?). Judy Wood's energy beam claims would be examined by whatever the equivalent expert is in that field (high energy physicists?). Claims regarding the aircraft debris in Shanksville or at the Pentagon would need to be reviewed by air crash experts. The intensity and location claims of the fires in the towers would be judged by fire investigators. The performance claims regarding the structural steel members would be done not necessarily by metallurgists, but by structural engineers and fire & structure investigators. Etc.

Perhaps you should contact the editors of the Journal and determine if chemists have peer-reviewed Jone's work. I'm sure you are aware of what happens to someone when they assume something and your first bit of a comment is placing you on that path and then one seems to be leading you down that path.

In short, Peer Review must be conducted by "Peers". Chemists must analyze works with chemical claims; theologians won't do. Pilots must be the ones to judge the claims of Flight 77's maneuvers; PhD's in philosophy won't do. And yes, those individuals do have to actively read and pass judgement on those works; merely having relevant peers on the list of reviewers doesn't mean anything if they don't take active part in the refereeing process.

You realize the standard procedure of peer review includes the review first, and then the document is presented to the editors. Perhaps if you contacted the journal, you might discover who is in charge of reviewing the appropriate fields instead of focusing on just the two editors.

It doesn't matter what other aspect of the fantasists works fit the definition, the concept of the review "by peers" is so fundamental it goes unsaid.
I listed several definitions of peer review all provided what I would argue are experts on the definition. Your biased interpretation doesn't change the fact of the definition.


ElMondoHummus-As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers. But they do publish their credentials and numbers, something Uncle Fetzer won't do. The editors of the JAMA, for instance, have over 150 reviewers available, from PhDs to Professors to Ass't Professors.... They will generally get as many as 75% of their reviewers to assess an article BEFORE PUBLICATION. The editors are generally guided by the ratings of the reviewers before deciding whether to publish, in fact.

Perhaps you should determine the fields that the peer-reviewers are specialists in.

I think many of you think that the J9/11S is reviewed only by the editors and hence the brushoff of the definition of peer-review. Your best debunker tactic should be to try to find out who serves as peer reviews and then get back to the thread instead of debunking based upon assumptions.

CHF-Well now that you're back, let's clarify where you stand...
You believe Jones' journal conducts peer-reviews but Holocaust Denial publications do not, correct?
As you continue the line of holocaust denial no matter what context, I have to place you into the ignore category. I'm sorry to do this, but I can't honestly communicate with someone who promotes either directly or indirectly Holocaust Denial.

[SDC]

[quote=ElMondoHummus;3172075]

I think many of you think that the J9/11S is reviewed only by the editors and hence the brushoff of the definition of peer-review. Your best debunker tactic should be to try to find out who serves as peer reviews and then get back to the thread instead of debunking based upon assumptions.


S.Dang, editors can be the "peers" who review. It's a more flexible system than that.

Could you address the assumption /assertion that JONES is a worthless rag, in scholarly terms, regardless of the issue of peer review? Thanks.

[Dave Rogers]

As you continue the line of holocaust denial no matter what context, I have to place you into the ignore category. I'm sorry to do this, but I can't honestly communicate with someone who promotes either directly or indirectly Holocaust Denial.

Wow, there's an offer I can't pass up. If I say that JON-ES has as poor a standard of peer review as a holocaust denial publication, will you put me on ignore too?

Dave

[uk_dave]

Interesting that Cters use 'truth' and 'peer review' in the same way that communist dictatorships use 'democratic'.

[ElMondoHummus]

Wow... can we start calling you Swing-and-a-Miss?

The Jo911S never claimed to have chemists reviewing chemistry claims, structural engineers reviewing engineering claims, or anyone in relevant fields reviewing anyone else's work in those fields. The burden of proof is on the Jo911S to provide proof that chemists are reviewing chemical claims, and so on.

You're defending air. The Jo911S/SF911T are merely going through the motions. They do not advance knowledge.


If you would kindly do so, can you please point out to someone who has no comprehension of peer review, where the sources I quoted assumed anything?



What kind of non-sequitor is that? The sources already know what "peer" means. You don't. You not only failed to defend that aspect of the Jo911S's implementation of "peer review", you proved that you didn't understand the concept because you failed to prove that the review process did indeed involve a jury of peers. You merely kept on citing examples of who lists peer reviewed journals and quoting aspects of the review process, as if those individual aspects validated the whole implementation. It does not. A witch doctor conducting a physical examination, even if he follows all the procedures a hospital or clinic lays out, is not practicing medicine because that witch doctor fails in one crucial aspect: He's has no real medical knowledge. You are attempting to defend this "witch doctor" practice by the Jo911S group by merely citing superficial similarities to the refereeing process. You miss the fundamentals.

You're quoting without comprehension, Swing. That's your problem. You seek paragraphs that you think support your assertions, but you do not attempt to understand the whole concept. Shoddy thinking in any aspect, let alone when you're defending the indefensible.

You cannot cling to superficial similarities and claim that the process is valid. It is up to the Jo911S people to prove their refereeing process is indeed valid. So far, they have not.


ElMondoHummus-As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers. But they do publish their credentials and numbers, something Uncle Fetzer won't do. The editors of the JAMA, for instance, have over 150 reviewers available, from PhDs to Professors to Ass't Professors.... They will generally get as many as 75% of their reviewers to assess an article BEFORE PUBLICATION. The editors are generally guided by the ratings of the reviewers before deciding whether to publish, in fact.



Speaking of reading comprehension, perhaps you better attribute that to the proper source. I was merely quoting Foolmewunz; while I agree with the text, I didn't originate it.


I think many of you think that the J9/11S is reviewed only by the editors and hence the brushoff of the definition of peer-review. Your best debunker tactic should be to try to find out who serves as peer reviews and then get back to the thread instead of debunking based upon assumptions.



Right there is where the Jo911S fails. Where are the demolitions experts on the review panel? Don't quote Jowenko; he's not listed anywhere in the J0911S or SF911T site. So who analyzes claims of demolitions use? There's no one there. Also: Where are the seismologists who reveiwed the "Seismic Proof" paper? None are listed at the SF911T site either. Where are the fire experts who refereed Legge's "NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire" work? There's only one listed on the SF911T site - Arthur Scheuerman - and it's a stretch to ask anyone to think he signed off on a paper concluding that demolitions were involved, given that that thesis is completely the opposite of what he believes (One of many sources illustrating Scheuerman's beliefs: http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/who-is-arthur-scheuerman/ (http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/who-is-arthur-scheuerman/); BTW, referral from this site appears to be disabled, so you'll have to either cut & paste, or manually enter the URL).

So you want us to contact the journal editors to discover who's reviewing those theories, when they themselves fail to list anyone in those fields as belonging to their publication? They are already admitting they have no expertise in those particular fields. So which member of the Jo911S/SF911T group can serve as referee for those works?

You're trying a diversion by asking us to go check. They do not list anyone. They've already revealed their jury pool, and it's empty of relevant expertise. Now, tell me how they're truly conducting peer review when they themselves do not list any actual peers? I'll give them this: They have enough psychology-trained members to evalutate works like "Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/FaultyTowersofBeliefPart_I.pdf)". That, I'll concede. But tell me where the Jo911S/SF911T group includes demolitions industry peers? Fire and structural analysis peers? Seismologists? And so on.

Once again, how is what they do peer review when they do not have proper peers with which to conduct reviews?

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE]Wow... can we start calling you Swing-and-a-Miss?

The Jo911S never claimed to have chemists reviewing chemistry claims, structural engineers reviewing engineering claims, or anyone in relevant fields reviewing anyone else's work in those fields. The burden of proof is on the Jo911S to provide proof that chemists are reviewing chemical claims, and so on.

I will let another debunker, debunk you, or better yet you did that yourself.
Foolmewunz-As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers.
Again, you little comments can be supported or not supported if you would only contact the editors and simply ask them.

If you would kindly do so, can you please point out to someone who has no comprehension of peer review, where the sources I quoted assumed anything?
Thanks for dodging.

What kind of non-sequitor is that? The sources already know what "peer" means. You don't.
Oh, so now you have attributed the title to yourself of Mouthpiece of University Libraries and online resources?? ROFLMAO. Please explain the assumptions you attributed to my sources for the definition of peer review?
I gave you numerous definitions that can be used to support the peer-review attribute of the Journal in question. Move on or move out, but don't dare attempt to speak for anyone or anything but yourself. By doing so it really makes you look foolish. A medical doctor 'debunker' has already agreed that the journal of 9/11 is a peer-review journal. He and I only differ on the opinions of the people who publish and edit the journal.

You merely kept on citing examples of who lists peer reviewed journals and quoting aspects of the review process, as if those individual aspects validated the whole implementation. It does not.
Reading comprehension problems yet again? Are you being difficult for a reason or just bored?
Go back and check the sources and the quotes I listed: they are explanations and definitions of peer-review. Plain and simple. If you don't agree, then you disagree with factual statements made by experts in their relevant fields.

A witch doctor conducting a physical examination, even if he follows all the procedures a hospital or clinic lays out, is not practicing medicine because that witch doctor fails in one crucial aspect: He's has no real medical knowledge. You are attempting to defend this "witch doctor" practice by the Jo911S group by merely citing superficial similarities to the refereeing process. You miss the fundamentals.
ROFLMAO again! You are certainly good for a laugh today. I would suggest looking up the complex question fallacy and you will understand why I find this part of your comment quite entertaining and 110% irrelevant.

You cannot cling to superficial similarities and claim that the process is valid. It is up to the Jo911S people to prove their refereeing process is indeed valid. So far, they have not.
No chief, what I did was compare the statement that The Journal of 9/11 Studies was peer-reviewed and then I examined multiple definitions and processes of peer review. And guess what, the definition applies to the Journal! Imagine that!
And again, perhaps instead of making me laugh at your posts, you should contact the journal and the editors and get a statement from them. What are you waiting for? Stop being a lazy debunker and get to work! Gravy would if he cared, will you?


Where are the demolitions experts on the review panel? Don't quote Jowenko; he's not listed anywhere in the J0911S or SF911T site. So who analyzes claims of demolitions use? There's no one there. Also: Where are the seismologists who reveiwed the "Seismic Proof" paper? None are listed at the SF911T site either. Where are the fire experts who refereed Legge's "NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire" work? There's only one listed on the SF911T site - Arthur Scheuerman - and it's a stretch to ask anyone to think he signed off on a paper concluding that demolitions were involved, given that that thesis is completely the opposite of what he believes (One of many sources illustrating Scheuerman's beliefs: http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/who-is-arthur-scheuerman/ (http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/who-is-arthur-scheuerman/); BTW, referral from this site appears to be disabled, so you'll have to either cut & paste, or manually enter the URL).

Let me refer you to this statement:
Foolmewunz and agreed to by ElMondoHummus-As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers.

They are already admitting they have no expertise in those particular fields. So which member of the Jo911S/SF911T group can serve as referee for those works?
Really? Perhaps you can cite your source. Because frankly, I don't believe you.

[QUOTE]You're trying a diversion by asking us to go check. They do not list anyone.
They've already revealed their jury pool, and it's empty of relevant expertise. Now, tell me how they're truly conducting peer review when they themselves do not list any actual peers?

LOL...let me repost this for you, since you missed it in your own comment and appear to be ignoring it:
Foolmewunz and agreed to by ElMondoHummus-As Dr. Greening pointed out some weeks ago, many publications don't publish the lists of their reviewers.


I'll give them this: They have enough psychology-trained members to evalutate works like "Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/FaultyTowersofBeliefPart_I.pdf)". That, I'll concede. But tell me where the Jo911S/SF911T group includes demolitions industry peers? Fire and structural analysis peers? Seismologists? And so on.

See, now your confused. You've cited a peer reviewed paper authored by a psychologist but yet you are not raising hell because there is no named psychologist who peer-reviewed the paper! What exactly are you debating again??:newlol

Once again, how is what they do peer review when they do not have proper peers with which to conduct reviews?

Again, another big assumption. You of course could contact the Journal's editors and inquire into their peer review process. Then when your done, bring the results back to me and I will either continue to support my position or concede. Will you take the "peer-review challenge" and contact the editors to determine their peer review process?
I dare you!
I double dog dare you!!
I triple dog dare you!!

[Bell]

What the hell is up with you all screwing up the quotes? :confused:

[CHF]

As you continue the line of holocaust denial no matter what context, I have to place you into the ignore category. I'm sorry to do this, but I can't honestly communicate with someone who promotes either directly or indirectly Holocaust Denial.

Poor Swing. He knows his own logic would demand that he respect the "peer-review" of Holocaust Deniers so he dodges the issue by pretending that I'm somehow promoting it.

How pathetic.

[JimBenArm]

As you continue the line of holocaust denial no matter what context, I have to place you into the ignore category. I'm sorry to do this, but I can't honestly communicate with someone who promotes either directly or indirectly Holocaust Denial.

Poor Swing. He knows his own logic would demand that he respect the "peer-review" of Holocaust Deniers so he dodges the issue by pretending that I'm somehow promoting it.

How pathetic.
Wait, did I go through a wormhole in this thread? Swing is putting someone else on ignore for Holocaust denial, after the crap he posted in the Holocaust thread?

Really?

[ElMondoHummus]

No chief, what I did was compare the statement that The Journal of 9/11 Studies was peer-reviewed and then I examined multiple definitions and processes of peer review. And guess what, the definition applies to the Journal! Imagine that!



See? Even you agree that you're making a comparison of individual elements. And in your whole statement, you've yet to establish that the Jo911S or the SF911T group have peers who can review relevant docs.

And you keep pointing to the fact that other journals don't post lists of reviewers. But that's irrelevant; the Scholars did. Whenever we ask you all who the reviewers are for the articles they post, you all point at the membership list of the SF911T site. It's not us debunkers saying those are the peers, it's you truthers. I'm just working with what you guys give us. It's irrelevant that others don't posts the lists; SF911T has, according to all prior discussion from conspiracy fantasists on this issue. I can't help it if there are no peers there to properly review articles with. Are you consumers of the Jo911S wrong in claiming who the peer reviewership is? If so, do you care to correct the answers given in the past?


See, now your confused. You've cited a peer reviewed paper authored by a psychologist but yet you are not raising hell because there is no named psychologist who peer-reviewed the paper! What exactly are you debating again??


Hehe... you missed the sarcasm. By a country mile. Talk about reading into a paragraph what you want... I was illuminating the utter lack of expertise by pointing out the one exception that proves the rule: There are several members of the SF911T group claiming psychology training or experience. So the one paper that could have indeed undergone a review by legitimate peers was the one dealing with a psychological claim. I then contrasted that to the seismology work (with no listed reviewers), the demolitions claim (again, no listed reviewers), the fire and demolitions claim (one single reviewer, who's on record as disagreeing with claims regarding demolitions)...

We'll ignore the fact that there's no indication those psychology-trained members do indeed participate in the refereeing process, and are merely listed as members. We'll grant you some leeway and assume their presence indicates their participation. Which is admittedly in contradiction to current indications (Scheuerman, fire claims, demolitions conclusions), but I'm trying to grant your side some credit in this argument.


You of course could contact the Journal's editors and inquire into their peer review process.



LOL... I'm not the one claiming they have one. Feel free to contact them yourself and prove me wrong; they're the ones pushing the claim, you're the one defending it. We're the skeptics. Prove it to us.

I'm just totally impressed by how Swing manages to invert the burden of proof of his claims. Nice argumentation, I'll give him that much. In spite of the fact

[Foolmewunz]

Swing,

You're leaving out an important point, and since you're harping on what's left over, you need to go back and read my full post, again.

JAMA does not NAME the reviewers. They do, however, list the credentials of those reviewers, as I clearly mentioned.

Can you direct me to the page on Fetzer's site where he itemizes the credentials, degrees, and specialties of his reviewers?

And, by the way, in a decent professional journal, the editors DO NOT perform the peer review. They are the ones who decide, after reading the reviews and correlating the results, whether or not to publish. There are occasions when an editor has the expertise in a field to be ONE OF the reviewers, but it is never left to the editors, alone.

Further, I posted the definition of "peer review" that I did because I found it to be a fuller, more comprehensive and clearer definition than the ones you linked to/posted.

[ElMondoHummus]

Nice argumentation, I'll give him that much. In spite of the fact


Whoopsie!!! Where was I going with that hanging sentence fragment? I just don't remember... Sorry for the cutoff, everyone; it should've just ended at "... that much."

Anyway, clarification of the following (can't edit previous post; logged off between the time I wrote it and now):


I then contrasted that to the seismology work (with no listed reviewers), the demolitions claim (again, no listed reviewers), the fire and demolitions claim (one single reviewer, who's on record as disagreeing with claims regarding demolitions)...


What I was referring to was the membership of the SF911T (no listed seismologists, no listed demolitions experts, 1 single firefighting expert (Scheuerman), but several listed with psychology credentials!! ;)). So unless they went outside their membership, they simply do not have the reviewers available to truly "peer review". Which, as I noted before, is in contradiction to what we've been told in the past was their practice.

[DRBUZZ0]

Lets examine the definition of article-# A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.


Well see, there's yer problem!


As you probably don't know, composition means: the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. In this case letters and articles from the parts of the whole (Journal of 9/11 Studies). A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.



Um yea... The thing is based on the context I think there's a very reasonable and strongly implied assumption that by "peer reviewed" means published in a reviewed journal like The Journal Science or Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine or the British Medical Journal or the Canadian Journal of Radiology or the Journal of the American Acadamy of Sciences or something.

I guess it's something of a subjective and "fuzzy" definition of what would be legitimate peer review but I think most people would not consider a bunch of other 9/11 CT'ers reviewing it to count. Even if they are his "peers."


And as far as "paper" I think most would tend to think that means a formal and full writeup is published in such a journal and not in the editorial section either. Something that an accademic institution might reasonably cite and such.

I mean if you want to go with the strict technical definition of paper then I could claim all the square "paper" I went through wiping my backside after having a bit too much mexican food as papers on the topic of international relations in the western hemisphere.

[tsig]

Well see, there's yer problem!




Um yea... The thing is based on the context I think there's a very reasonable and strongly implied assumption that by "peer reviewed" means published in a reviewed journal like The Journal Science or Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine or the British Medical Journal or the Canadian Journal of Radiology or the Journal of the American Acadamy of Sciences or something.

I guess it's something of a subjective and "fuzzy" definition of what would be legitimate peer review but I think most people would not consider a bunch of other 9/11 CT'ers reviewing it to count. Even if they are his "peers."


And as far as "paper" I think most would tend to think that means a formal and full writeup is published in such a journal and not in the editorial section either. Something that an accademic institution might reasonably cite and such.

I mean if you want to go with the strict technical definition of paper then I could claim all the square "paper" I went through wiping my backside after having a bit too much mexican food as papers on the topic of international relations in the western hemisphere.

Hey! according to SW the JREF is a peer-reviewed journal.

Maybe it means Journal Regarding Educational Facts.

[stilicho]

It appears there's a question about whether Swing Dangler's and S. Jones' definition of "peer-reviewed" is a generally accepted one. An honest academic would simply remove all doubts and submit their work to any engineering faculty at any degree-granting institution or to any accreditation body.

Sounds simple to me.

[jhunter1163]

I think the JREF forum is a lot closer to having peer review than JONES. There are enough engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, and so on posting here that any engineering, scientific, legal, medical or other claim will be reviewed by someone qualified IN THE FIELD.

This is the point that Swingie and his ilk miss. No matter what your qualifications might be in one field, they don't transfer to another. It's like an auto factory worker putting on starters. He's done it for years; he can slap one of those bad boys in your car in two minutes flat. That's great, but say you have a question about your transmission. Now, Starter Guy might have seen transmissions put in. He might have had lunch with Earl the Transmission Guy a few times. Heck, he might even have gone over to Earl's for barbecue last week. But does that make him qualified to talk about your transmission problem? In Twoofy World it does, because, let's face it, starters and transmissions are both car parts. In the real world, however...