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

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

The second reply, in Mr. Alam's own words, was a suggestion that I should instead be submitting my own paper in response. I have never before seen a scientific journal article whose abstract dealt with the editorial standards of the journal itself. Needless to say, this suggestion is unprofessional, and borderline insane.

Well yeah, he wants the $600!!

[R.Mackey]

Far be it from me to ascribe a motive to his bizarre and unprofessional behavior, so let's just say that he didn't offer me a discount.

[uk_dave]

And if you get the paper retracted and the 'publication' cleans up it's act........

[truther] Censorship!!! They must be scared of us because they went all out, night and day, no expense spared to pressure the company to stop publishing ALL of the truth movement's papers. I even heard of a NASA government shill who actually went to Dundee in India to personally physically threaten the commander-in-chief of the publication, personally in person. Inside job!!!11eleven!!! etc etc and so forth[/truther]

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Regardless of whether or not the paper ultimately gets retracted, we can now confidently state that the publishers are incompetent. This matter needs to be resolved independent of any concerns with Dr. Jones or his paper.

I have now informed the Editor in Chief, Dr. Dong-Sheng Jeng of the University of Dundee, of the situation. I remain hopeful that he was previously unaware of these problems and will take steps to rectify them. The alternative is most depressing.

Well, there's our answer. Please let us know what Dr. Jeng's response is.

Yeah, everyone gets burned once in a while. But at least we can all learn from other's mistakes....

[R.Mackey]

Dr. Jeng responded to my e-mail promptly, and he is looking into it.

I'm not going to reprint his entire e-mail, but there are two interesting points. One is that before he took over the publication, the publishers handled all submissions rather than the editors. He's correctly insisting that all publications must go through the editors. This paper did not.

The other point is that he was alerted to this paper by another respondent a week ago, tried to find out who the reviewers were at that time, and still hasn't gotten the answer.

As expected, Dr. Jeng seems to be handling this professionally, and he has my full support. We'll see how this turns out, but I think we've found the source of the problem.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Dr. Jeng responded to my e-mail promptly, and he is looking into it.

I'm not going to reprint his entire e-mail, but there are two interesting points. One is that before he took over the publication, the publishers handled all submissions rather than the editors. He's correctly insisting that all publications must go through the editors. This paper did not.

The other point is that he was alerted to this paper by another respondent a week ago, tried to find out who the reviewers were at that time, and still hasn't gotten the answer.

As expected, Dr. Jeng seems to be handling this professionally, and he has my full support. We'll see how this turns out, but I think we've found the source of the problem.

Nice work!

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Dr. Jeng responded to my e-mail promptly, and he is looking into it.the reviewers were at that time, and still hasn't gotten the answer.

As expected, Dr. Jeng seems to be handling this professionally, and he has my full support. We'll see how this turns out, but I think we've found the source of the problem.

Thanks for lookign into this for us!

On another note, I just got an "interesting" CFP from another small journal. Details are in a thread I started in Science & Tech. I'd particularly like to hear your comments if you care to make any.

[Liszt]

Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert

What the hell is Bubble Hash?

(from High Times)

probably hash made from bubblegum, which is a strain of marijuana.

[CHF]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

I'm not going to reprint his entire e-mail, but there are two interesting points. One is that before he took over the publication, the publishers handled all submissions rather than the editors. He's correctly insisting that all publications must go through the editors. This paper did not.

Ahhhh.....

Quote:

The other point is that he was alerted to this paper by another respondent a week ago, tried to find out who the reviewers were at that time, and still hasn't gotten the answer.

Shouldn't the publisher have easy access to that information?

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

He's correctly insisting that all publications must go through the editors. This paper did not.

Damn, sometimes even I am in awe of the power of the NWO.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Dr. Jeng responded to my e-mail promptly, and he is looking into it.

I'm not going to reprint his entire e-mail, but there are two interesting points. One is that before he took over the publication, the publishers handled all submissions rather than the editors. He's correctly insisting that all publications must go through the editors. This paper did not.

The other point is that he was alerted to this paper by another respondent a week ago, tried to find out who the reviewers were at that time, and still hasn't gotten the answer.

As expected, Dr. Jeng seems to be handling this professionally, and he has my full support. We'll see how this turns out, but I think we've found the source of the problem.

Excellent. Thanks for the update, R.Mackey. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Spud1k]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Dr. Jeng responded to my e-mail promptly, and he is looking into it.

I'm not going to reprint his entire e-mail, but there are two interesting points. One is that before he took over the publication, the publishers handled all submissions rather than the editors. He's correctly insisting that all publications must go through the editors. This paper did not.

The other point is that he was alerted to this paper by another respondent a week ago, tried to find out who the reviewers were at that time, and still hasn't gotten the answer.

As expected, Dr. Jeng seems to be handling this professionally, and he has my full support. We'll see how this turns out, but I think we've found the source of the problem.

VERY, very interesting. That doesn't sound like how a journal should be run at all. If the editor in chief can't find out who the reviewers of a particular article were, something is very badly wrong.

This whole thing has just permanently soured me to the Bentham open journals. I don't think I'll ever be sending anything there and I'll be advising all my colleagues and collaborators the same. I can't see Thomson ISI putting them in their indexes any time soon, put it that way.

Good work.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

No, it is not. There is a very real possibility that some people could lose tenure over something like this. The responsible way to deal with it is to bottle it as quickly and professionally as possible, and that is precisely what I am attempting to do.

===

Two replies last night, both of them from Mr. Alam. The first was a forwarded message from Dr. Steven Jones. As you can expect, he disagrees with my assessment. However, as I indicated above, this is an editorial matter, and there is absolutely no reason why a submitter should be responding or even weighing in on the issue. This is clear evidence of a broken peer review process.

The second reply, in Mr. Alam's own words, was a suggestion that I should instead be submitting my own paper in response. I have never before seen a scientific journal article whose abstract dealt with the editorial standards of the journal itself. Needless to say, this suggestion is unprofessional, and borderline insane.

Regardless of whether or not the paper ultimately gets retracted, we can now confidently state that the publishers are incompetent. This matter needs to be resolved independent of any concerns with Dr. Jones or his paper.

I have now informed the Editor in Chief, Dr. Dong-Sheng Jeng of the University of Dundee, of the situation. I remain hopeful that he was previously unaware of these problems and will take steps to rectify them. The alternative is most depressing.

Mackey, would not another approach be to contact one of the heads of Bentham? I know it is unlikely to happen, but a discussion on the ridiculous standards being exhibited might make them review it with Mr. Alam a little more closely.

Just a thought.

TAM

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Mackey, would not another approach be to contact one of the heads of Bentham? I know it is unlikely to happen, but a discussion on the ridiculous standards being exhibited might make them review it with Mr. Alam a little more closely.

Well, I've discussed it with the publisher (Mr. Alam) and the editor in chief. I don't know what their org chart looks like, but presumably these are the two best people to contact.

Also, I went through the contact information on their website. Since it's an open access journal, I can only assume that e-mail is their preferred method of communication. I didn't find any other obvious contacts apart from the rest of the editorial board. If there is someone else who should be informed, I can do that, but I think this is being handled at the right level at present.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

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.

His "own journal" is not a "journal". It raises nothing Jones hasn't been blathering about on his websites for these past years...nothing at all.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Now is this journal just another scam? Although I haven't seen anything that would suggest it is a scam journal, it might very well be.

Let's see...
How many other Engineering Journals can you site that have 163 editorial members (gotta be a record!) with most all last name starting with A-C, charge a $600-$900 fee and SOLICIT via email spam for editorial members to persons with no expertise in the related field?

Does this not raise a rather large red flag as to their credibility at this point?

Originally Posted by Sizzler

With that said, I think it is important to once again look at the claims made in his paper. By your own admission you have claimed that his information is correct (in a different post), and I would agree.

What, like thermite? The very same claims he's been making for some time now while refusing to disclose the chain of custody of the material, refusing to show his methods of testing or test data?
The only info on his paper thats correct is when he agrees with the NIST report. Can you site anything else on the paper that is correct?
I can site lies Jones has made on the paper!!

Originally Posted by Sizzler

think this is a great start in bridging cooperation between the "truth movement" and NIST. We are all still waiting for WTC7 report to come out after all. This, and other efforts may be what some of the NIST scientists need to look outside of the fire induced collapse hypothesis, if indeed it is proving unfeasible.

Would you be willing to post your letter to the publishers that you mentioned?

How is a argumentative paper with zero data sets, no evidence, and no new information of any kind a "great start"?
NIST scientist and many other scientist have shown a "fire induced collapse hypothesis" to be very much feasible. The only hypothesis (if one can call it that) that is proving unfeasible is that of Dr. Jones. Are you suggesting that we are to investigate claims that have no empirical evidence made by persons going out of their way to bypass all scientific protocol?

If so, explain why.

[lapman]

Anything new from the editor in chief?

[Mr.D]

Bump.

(I imagine it's going to be a while before we hear anything if at all, but I don't want this to be forgotten)

[celestrin]

FWIW, I've contacted one of the people on the editorial advisory board, and he had confirmed that was really him (except for the editor, there are no full names on the list and I initially theorised the board members were simply made up, with names resembling well known experts in the field).

But he also said he had never done any peer reviews for the journal nor is he familiar with their peer review process. The only contacts with the journal were their initial mail, asking him to become editorial board's member, his inauguration process, and multiple further emails asking him to write an article for them. He was never asked to perform any peer reviews for them, as opposed to other journals, where he does, on average, up to 10 peer reviews annually.

[tomwaits]

lulz

the mysterious editors of an unknown journal. good work, 9/11 truth!

[Denie]

Originally Posted by celestrin

FWIW, I've contacted one of the people on the editorial advisory board, and he had confirmed that was really him (except for the editor, there are no full names on the list and I initially theorised the board members were simply made up, with names resembling well known experts in the field).

But he also said he had never done any peer reviews for the journal nor is he familiar with their peer review process. The only contacts with the journal were their initial mail, asking him to become editorial board's member, his inauguration process, and multiple further emails asking him to write an article for them. He was never asked to perform any peer reviews for them, as opposed to other journals, where he does, on average, up to 10 peer reviews annually.

What I find very odd, is that almost all members have last names beginning with the letters A, B, or C.
What are the mathematical odds of this happening?

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Denie

What I find very odd, is that almost all members have last names beginning with the letters A, B, or C.
What are the mathematical odds of this happening?

That's pretty funny. I suspect that by the time they got to the C's they had fulfilled their quota.

The whole thing is such a joke. (But did anyone here really expect anything else?) For truthers to go around crowing about this as the crowning acheivement of their movement is like finding a free toy in a box of Cracker Jacks and insisting it's the Nobel Prize.

[celestrin]

Originally Posted by Denie

What I find very odd, is that almost all members have last names beginning with the letters A, B, or C.
What are the mathematical odds of this happening?

Are we talking about the same journal? For example, I see more Wangs than those with As among the editorial board, and there are as many Ls and Ms as there are Bs or Cs.

[Regent]

Hello. This is my first post on the forums and I had a question or two concerning Jones and his co-authors paper and felt this was the right place to ask it.

Is there a danger that Jones could use this peer-reviewed letter simply as a means to legitimize his claims of thermite? Perhaps not legitimize, but lend some merit to them?

By being allowed to raise the issue in the first place, and citing his own work to back up the claims, does it not follow that the peer-review must have also reviewed the cited sources (Jones) and saw fit to allow him to include it in this letter? This seems to me to bit backwards. Shouldn't the research Jones uses to back up those claims be the first thing submitted to a peer-review, and then if it passes, that research can be used to confront the NIST, or further expanded on, in future publications?

Was a step skipped here and in the process Jones can know claim that there is some merit to his evidence for thermite use, and the fact that this paper was published is proof of it?

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Regent

Hello. This is my first post on the forums and I had a question or two concerning Jones and his co-authors paper and felt this was the right place to ask it.

Is there a danger that Jones could use this peer-reviewed letter simply as a means to legitimize his claims of thermite? Perhaps not legitimize, but lend some merit to them?

By being allowed to raise the issue in the first place, and citing his own work to back up the claims, does it not follow that the peer-review must have also reviewed the cited sources (Jones) and saw fit to allow him to include it in this letter? This seems to me to bit backwards. Shouldn't the research Jones uses to back up those claims be the first thing submitted to a peer-review, and then if it passes, that research can be used to confront the NIST, or further expanded on, in future publications?

Was a step skipped here and in the process Jones can know claim that there is some merit to his evidence for thermite use, and the fact that this paper was published is proof of it?

Welcome, Regent. You raise an excellent point. I'm not overly familiar with scientific peer review, but I think your concern may be well founded.

[johnny karate]

Being wholly ignorant in how this process works, I would hazard a guess that if Jones did somehow subvert it (which wouldn't shock me in the least), it's not as if any legitimate scientists are actually going to fall for it. So there's probably little to fear on that front.

[ihaunter]

Originally Posted by celestrin

FWIW, I've contacted one of the people on the editorial advisory board, and he had confirmed that was really him (except for the editor, there are no full names on the list and I initially theorised the board members were simply made up, with names resembling well known experts in the field).

But he also said he had never done any peer reviews for the journal nor is he familiar with their peer review process. The only contacts with the journal were their initial mail, asking him to become editorial board's member, his inauguration process, and multiple further emails asking him to write an article for them. He was never asked to perform any peer reviews for them, as opposed to other journals, where he does, on average, up to 10 peer reviews annually.

Considering the size of their editorial advisory board, the fact that he hasn't done a peer review doesn't necessarily mean anything. Although it is an interesting data point when viewed with some of the other concerns brought up here. Of course that makes this whole thing sound like our own little conspiracy theory. The main difference being that we have individuals with relevant experience investigating this through proper channels.

[Spud1k]

Originally Posted by Regent

Hello. This is my first post on the forums and I had a question or two concerning Jones and his co-authors paper and felt this was the right place to ask it.

Is there a danger that Jones could use this peer-reviewed letter simply as a means to legitimize his claims of thermite? Perhaps not legitimize, but lend some merit to them?

By being allowed to raise the issue in the first place, and citing his own work to back up the claims, does it not follow that the peer-review must have also reviewed the cited sources (Jones) and saw fit to allow him to include it in this letter? This seems to me to bit backwards. Shouldn't the research Jones uses to back up those claims be the first thing submitted to a peer-review, and then if it passes, that research can be used to confront the NIST, or further expanded on, in future publications?

Was a step skipped here and in the process Jones can know claim that there is some merit to his evidence for thermite use, and the fact that this paper was published is proof of it?

Jones was pretty careful about how he worded it. He used phrases like "it has been suggested that" when referring back to the JONES articles, so he didn't actually state any of his theories as fact in this article. A step wasn't skipped as such and It wouldn't fool anyone who is used to reading academic literature, but the truthers will feel galvanised regardless.

[Clippy]

Originally Posted by Spud1k

Jones was pretty careful about how he worded it. He used phrases like "it has been suggested that" when referring back to the JONES articles, so he didn't actually state any of his theories as fact in this article. A step wasn't skipped as such and It wouldn't fool anyone who is used to reading academic literature, but the truthers will feel galvanised regardless.

I agree that the truthers are making a bigger deal out of this paper than is warranted. If he is able to publish some physical evidence (e.g. analysis of his red chips), that would be much more interesting. I don't know what he's planning to do with his work on the red chips. Does anyone know what he's doing with it? He mentioned on 911blogger that there are other peer-reviewed papers in the works. Dunno if that's what he was referring to.

[Regent]

Quote:

We may be able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the evidence for thermite use is mounting. [13, 22]

It was that last line I was speaking of. Saying that the evidence for the use of thermite is mounting, and that the evidence was unearthed through his own "state of the art" methods...well, it is tiptoeing around stating that his theory is fact, but it's not legitimate scientists reading this, or hearing Jones claim that this gives his work some merit, and believing it, that had me worried.

Thanks for the Welcome, Spitfire.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by celestrin

Are we talking about the same journal? For example, I see more Wangs than those with As among the editorial board, and there are as many Ls and Ms as there are Bs or Cs.

The editorial members of the engineering journal itself in which Jones paper is in. Remember, there are several different journals in different fields.

[CHF]

Originally Posted by Regent

It was that last line I was speaking of. Saying that the evidence for the use of thermite is mounting, and that the evidence was unearthed through his own "state of the art" methods...well, it is tiptoeing around stating that his theory is fact, but it's not legitimate scientists reading this, or hearing Jones claim that this gives his work some merit, and believing it, that had me worried.

I'm not what "mounting" evidence Jones is talking about. He hasn't added any new research for months.

[Spud1k]

Originally Posted by Regent

It was that last line I was speaking of. Saying that the evidence for the use of thermite is mounting, and that the evidence was unearthed through his own "state of the art" methods...well, it is tiptoeing around stating that his theory is fact, but it's not legitimate scientists reading this, or hearing Jones claim that this gives his work some merit, and believing it, that had me worried.

Quite. I have to admit, I wouldn't let an unsubstantiated comment like that fly in any paper I'd been asked to review.

But still, it's only the hardcore truthers that are going to be impressed with this. I imagine most fencesitters will take one look at the title and fail to be impressed.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, the evidence of thermite is mounting. This now brings it up to 0.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Regent

Hello. This is my first post on the forums and I had a question or two concerning Jones and his co-authors paper and felt this was the right place to ask it.

Is there a danger that Jones could use this peer-reviewed letter simply as a means to legitimize his claims of thermite? Perhaps not legitimize, but lend some merit to them?

By being allowed to raise the issue in the first place, and citing his own work to back up the claims, does it not follow that the peer-review must have also reviewed the cited sources (Jones) and saw fit to allow him to include it in this letter? This seems to me to bit backwards. Shouldn't the research Jones uses to back up those claims be the first thing submitted to a peer-review, and then if it passes, that research can be used to confront the NIST, or further expanded on, in future publications?

Was a step skipped here and in the process Jones can know claim that there is some merit to his evidence for thermite use, and the fact that this paper was published is proof of it?

Welcome to the forum.

You are spot on, IMO, on the entire premise of his submission of his paper to this "Open" journal.

1. Why have we not seen it published in ANY reputable journal, peer reviewed or otherwise?

2. Why, when those in the know clearly know he and his colleagues disagree with NIST and feel they were part of the cover up, did he and his authors feel the need to title their paper so misleadingly?

3. Why, when asked by R. Mackey directly, was the editor of this journal evasive on why they published the article, instead telling Mackey to readdress his concerns to the author?

TAM

[Regent]

It just seems to me that Jones now has the talking point he's been looking for. He can say that he has a peer reviewed paper wherein he posits that there is merit to his claims of thermite use. All without having to actually submit that evidence for review and testing.

This wouldn't fly within legitimate scientific circles, but for the laymen (those who aren't fully educated on Jones claims, and are susceptible to the idea of a conspiracy) the claims that there may be some legitimacy to his "evidence" is worrisome in its implications.

Surely it's telling that a paper entitled Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction culminates in the final point being centered around whether the NIST tested for thermite and the reasons they should have.

I should point out that I'm no expert on any of this. I'm making no claims to the veracity and thoroughness of the review processes of Bentham Open. I'm just genuinely interested on the sole point of the wording allowed in this paper in regards to the thermite evidence. And also interested to hear if there has been any further correspondence between R. Mackey and Dr. Jeng over this matter.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by celestrin

Are we talking about the same journal? For example, I see more Wangs than those with As among the editorial board, and there are as many Ls and Ms as there are Bs or Cs.

This is what I mean...

Editorial Advisory Board:

M. Abdel-Rehim (Sweden)
J.L. Ackerman (USA)
J.-S. Ahn (Korea)
N.W. Allen (USA)
E.G. Alexov (USA)
G. Alterovitz (USA)
P.B. Andrade (Portugal)
G. Anderluh (Slovenia)
I. Anegon (France)
Z. Apostolides (Africa)
V.D. Appanna (Canada)
M. Asashima (Japan)
D.S. Auld (USA)
K.-H. Baek (S. Korea)
M.V. Backer (USA)
T.L. Bailey (Australia)
R.A. Bakalova-Zheleva (Japan)
C. Bala (Romania)
K. Balasubramanian (USA)
G. Balizs (Berlin)
H. Balard (France)
F. Baldini (Italy)
J. Baranowska-Kortylewicz (USA)
C. Barbas (Spain)
L. Barre (France)
Y. Barenholz (Israel)
D.A. Barrett (UK)
R. Barnard (Australia)
A. Bassi (Italy)
G. Bazylak (Poland)
T.W. Beck (USA)


N. Beckmann (Switzerland)
J.H. Beijnen (Netherlands)
S. Beissert (Germany)
W. Berger (Austria)
J.H. Beumer (USA)
Y.-J. Bignon (France)
J. Blanco (Spain)
B.H. Bland (Canada)
B. Bocca (Italy)
M.J. Bogusz (Germany)
W. Boland (Germany)
V.L. Bonilha (USA)
G.M. Bonora (Italy)
F.R. Boockfor (USA)
E. Bornberg-Bauer (Germany)
L.M Botana (Spain)
J.M.J. Bouckaert (Belgium)
W. Bourguet (France)
N.E. Broude (USA)
A.T. Brunger (USA)
R. Buchet (France)
B. Buszewski (Poland)
S. Büttgenbach (Germany)
Z. Cai (Hong Kong)
C. Carru (Italy)
R. Casadio (Italy)
M. Castagnola (Italy)
S. Cathum (Canada)
H.M.A. Cavanagh (Australia)
A. Cifuentes (Spain)
J.V. Cizdziel (USA)


E.L. Chaikof (USA)
C.L. Chakrabarti (USA)
J.-Soo Chang (Korea)
H.-T. Chang (Taiwan)
L.-C. Chang (Taiwan)
T.G. Chasteen (USA)
C.-T. Chen (Taiwan)

D.-F. Chen (China)
L. Chen (China)
S.-M. Chen (Taiwan)
X.-W. Chen (USA)
Z. Chen (Australia)
S.N.S. Cheung (Australia)
K.-Y. Choi (Korea)
Y.H. Choi (Netherlands)
N.-H. Chow (Taiwan)
S.-H. Chiou (Taiwan)
P.V. Choudary (USA)
S. Fanali (Italy)
P.L. Irwin (USA)
K. Jinno (Japan)
S.T. Knudsen (Denmark)
R. Lobinski (France)
E.C. Nice (Australia)
G. Oliva (Brazil)
S. Scarlata (Italy)
R. Verpoorte (The Netherlands)
A. Vrielink (Australia)
C.E. Welinder (Sweden)

[fullflavormenthol]

Hey. Calm down people. This journal is as legitimate as Vantage Press or Publish America. Geez.

[R.Mackey]

For what it's worth, I've had no further response from Dr. Jeng. So it stands where it was -- the publisher is operating without oversight, the publisher has no idea what he's doing, and the publisher has yet to provide the reviewers' comments (or even their names) to their own editor-in-chief.

I suppose I could turn up the heat and let their respective universities' steering committees know about this little tale of academic fraud, but I'm not sure we need to. We know what we wanted to know -- Dr. Jones got published because he found a disreputable journal, and his paper was never properly reviewed. Game, set, match, and he's still out a few hundred bucks.

If this happens again, though, the responsible parties have been duly reminded of their responsibility.

[enrique]

Hello, I am new here. I have been trying to debate a friend of mine who saw LC and became convinced of the CT position. I can only debate with him some light issues, but when it comes to more complex stuff, I don't know what to say. I need to learn from you guys here.

I came across this link (which I can't post because the system is not allowing me to post a link) and wanted to get some comments about it. If ok with you guys.

Let me try this way: opednews.com / maxwrite / diarypage.php?did=7305

Apparently this article, which may be relevant was published on May 8.

I am overwhelmed by the amount of info out there and am stuck trying to explain to this CT friend of mine about peer reviews and all the scientific papers out there.

[boloboffin]

Your link: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7305

Nothing new there that I could see skimming through it except for this great takeaway:

Quote:

It is said "the pen is mightier than the sword"; it may also be said that a 6 page letter with 5 civilian authors published April 18, 2008 in the peer-reviewed Open Civil Engineering Journal at bentham.org is more compelling than a 10,000 page report from a government agency that had hundreds of people working on it.