Bentham Editor In Chief Quits after Jones article - Page 4

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

NIST relieved after 'missing link' found
[url]http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i51615#this[/url

*AHEM*

Bottom of page, after the main article:

"The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious."

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

She is a disgruntled former employee, with sour grapes added.

No she isn't.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

No she isn't.

Yes, she is. She is a former employee who wrote a irrelevant rant. She is very disgruntled.

That makes her a disgruntled former employee.

The Bentham Journal has higher standards.

Maybe she can get hired by NIST for their next project on UFOs?

16.5 · 28th April 2009, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

She is a disgruntled former employee, with sour grapes added.

Cripes, you know the guy is trolling.

She wasn't an employee.

Bentham Open Publishing has one guy on the payroll. His job is to cash Jones' freaking checks.

Pardalis · 28th April 2009, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Bentham Open Publishing has one guy on the payroll. His job is to cash Jones' freaking checks.

I wonder if he had to pay three times, for each of his submissions.

Kent1 · 28th April 2009, 03:20 PM

The trolling on this site is getting out of hand.

Tricky · 28th April 2009, 03:24 PM

I've moved a great big chunk of this thread to AAH because of bickering and off-topic posts (especially about thermite). Please stick to the subject and eschew personal attacks. This applies even if you are responding to what you consider to be a personal attack.

I'm not handing out infractions at this time, but consider this a stern warning.

Posted By:Tricky

DGM · 28th April 2009, 03:41 PM

Just so I'm sure I got my facts straight.

This thread is about an "article" that was published in a "pay to publish" journal that came out last year that has had no impact in the scientific world. Now the editor and Chief has resigned, more or less confirming what has been said about this article (and the journal) all along (By us, the only people that paid attention).

Now my only question is, Why should we care?

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

Now my only question is, Why should we care?

For the entertainment value of rubbing the twoofers noses in it.

jhunter1163 · 28th April 2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

No, it wasn't a rubber stamp. You may believe that. But the paper was first submitted last August and was peer reviewed for 8 months, much longer than normal, because it was such a~~n explosive~~ bad paper.

Fixed.

Brainster · 28th April 2009, 04:05 PM

One of our commenters has provided a more easily digested translation of the article:

Quote:

It created a great attention, surprise and suspicion when the Open Chemical Physics Journal in April published a scientific article on remains of nanothermite which were found in great amounts in the dust from the WTC.

One those most surprised is apparently the editor in chief of the journal. Professor Marie-Paule Pileni first heard about he article when videnskab.dk wrote to her to ask for her professional assessment of the article’s content. The e-mail got her to immediately close the door to the journal.

“I resign as the editor in chief”, was the abrupt answer in an email to videnskab.dk

apathoid · 28th April 2009, 11:59 PM

So, can anyone summarize exactly what happened here? Apparently this editor quit because she found out that some crappy chemistry paper was published in the journal she's in charge of without her knowledege or consent? Do I have that right? If thats the case, that's one well oiled machine of a journal they've got there at Benthem!

beachnut · 29th April 2009, 12:23 AM

Quote:

An interview with a dolt ...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c9d_1239493431

No wonder she resigned, the guy is an idiot in that video! He can't say if it was 10 tons or 100 tons of thermite. How pathetic; just an insane person ranting about thermite. He and 8 other failed researchers had to pay to publish poppycock.

The experts of the paper have different ways it was applied! Ceiling tiles, paint, and pallets trucked in secretly past WTC security and all the independent security of the tenants at the WTC. The paper is easily seen as a fraud to rational people.

Dave Rogers · 29th April 2009, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by Galileo

can you site a real scientific source for this claim, or did you just make it up as usual?

Galileo, speaking as someone who's dealt with the peer-review process from both sides, your description of it doesn't seem based in reality. Every time I've been asked to review a paper, it's been by an editor of the magazine, and I've never dealt directly with an author. And the peer reviewer never needs to forward the paper to the editors, because the editors have already got it.

Dave

pgimeno · 29th April 2009, 02:03 AM

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for topic (thread moderated)

Back to the topic, I find parts of the translation linked by Brainster quite interesting.

Quote:

It is Niels Harrit’s coauthor Steven Jones who was in charge of contact to Bentham, and therefore the Danish researcher is presently not aware which responsible assistant editor the group has been communicating with.

Quote:

[Niels Harrit:] "It surprises me, of course, and it is regrettable, if it discredits our work. But her departure doesn’t change our conclusions, for it is a purely personnel related thing she his angry about. [...]"

Purely personal? Let's see:

Quote:

[Marie-Paule Pileni:] "I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period."

That does not look as a "purely personal" point of view. To me it reflects one of the earlier criticisms to the paper that I read: that the conclusions are hushed in one single direction, not justified by the findings.

Now that there's a more accurate translation I have to insist in this part:

Quote:

Niels Harrit’s superior at the University of Copenhagen, Nils O. Andersen has himself participated in the pool of researchers who could be selected as editor, on an article which should be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He has recently chosen to resign from the journals Editorial Advisory Board.

It'd be interesting to find out when Nils (Niels?) O. Andersen joined the editorial board. To me his presence looks like a suspicious intervention in the process. The fact that it might result suspicious was admitted by the paper's authors as I already quoted.

May Andersen be one of the 'in principle anonymous' referees? Did Jones know him? Did Jones know about his presence in the journal?

Too many unanswered questions.

Spud1k · 29th April 2009, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by apathoid

So, can anyone summarize exactly what happened here? Apparently this editor quit because she found out that some crappy chemistry paper was published in the journal she's in charge of without her knowledege or consent? Do I have that right? If thats the case, that's one well oiled machine of a journal they've got there at Benthem!

In any normal journal, the buck is supposed to stop at the editor for the scientific content of a paper, but Benthem Open seem to operate a curious policy of putting the publication team (whoever they are) in charge and simply using the position of editor as a figurehead. Given that it tarnishes your reputation if a bad paper goes out goes out on your watch as an editor, I'm not surprised she wanted out. I'm also not surprised she didn't comment on the quality of the paper; that would have made her a target for the WAC-jobs, if she isn't already.

This should serve as a warning to scientists everywhere: Under no circumstances have anything to do with Benthem Open. Open access may be the way of the future, but it'll be a non-starter if you don't have scientific quality and integrity.

Panoply_Prefect · 29th April 2009, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by pgimeno

I'm puzzled by Niels O. Andersen's role.

Now he announces he's quitting. Strange.

His explanation were:

Quote:

Men fagligt lå tidsskriftets i kanten af min ekspertise, og da jeg havde takket nej til at være editor på to artikler, besluttede jeg mig for, at jeg hellere ville bruge min tid på noget andet,« fortæller fysiker Nils O. Andersen, dekan på Det Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet og editor på The European Physical Journal D.

My amateuristic translation:

"The paper was at the fringe of the area of my expertise, and since I've declined editing two articles, I decided that I'd rather spend my time doing other things, says Nils O Andersen (...)

The paragraf just prior to that one also have him saying that he likes the idea of Open Access, since he dislikes that commercial companies makes money of the work of scientists:

Quote:

Open access er en spændende udvikling, og som princip skal man prøve ideen af, for der er ingen grund til, at de kommercielle forlag tjener penge på vores arbejde.

Translation:

Quote:

Open access is an exciting development and as a princip you should test the idea that commercial publishers make money on our work. Because there is no reason they should.

chillzero · 29th April 2009, 05:37 AM

Thread has been placed on moderated status. I may be moving out some posts, and issuing infractions. Please review Tricky's mod box above, and stop ignoring it.

Post on topic to this thread - that means the situation with Bentham and the Editor in Chief as regards this paper. It does not mean thermite theories, and it does not mean you can bicker.

Posted By:chillzero

BasqueArch · 29th April 2009, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Yes, I looked her up - ://xxxxxxxxxxxPileni You would expect someone in that position to be able to see what an absolute crock of crap the paper is.

That's interesting, none of her recent published journal articles are in Bentham's Open Journals.

BenBurch · 29th April 2009, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Bentham has a reputation for quality, not quantity.

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for topic

What a thoroughly dishonest summary of the reputation of that publisher.

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for topic

T.A.M. · 29th April 2009, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

That's interesting, none of her recent published journal articles are in Bentham's Open Journals.

Interesting? Why? What is your line of thought on this?

My thoughts are that she is a serious, well respected researcher, and that she became editor in chief for the publication (A) before she knew anything about it, and (B) because she believes in the Open Access concept as a means to allow publishing of papers that might have merit, but might not get into more established journals.

I do not think she would want to have her own work published in a journal she is editor and chief of...conflict of interest.

TAM

RedIbis · 29th April 2009, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

Only at Bentham. It is my understanding editors normally read papers before submiting them to the reviewers, reviewers they, not the commercial publisher have chosen

That's part of the problem:

"I can not accept that the issue is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. "

She is however a leading expert in nanometerials. Saying she isn't qualified may be a polite way of avoiding saying it's crap.

Truthers talent for unintentional irony nver ceases to amaze me.

But doesn't the article suggest that her decision was based on her lack of qualifications? Clearly, she is qualified, so I'm curious why the article suggests otherwise.

"Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

Panoply_Prefect · 29th April 2009, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Interesting? Why? What is your line of thought on this?

My thoughts are that she is a serious, well respected researcher, and that she became editor in chief for the publication (A) before she knew anything about it, and (B) because she believes in the Open Access concept as a means to allow publishing of papers that might have merit, but might not get into more established journals.

I do not think she would want to have her own work published in a journal she is editor and chief of...conflict of interest.

TAM

I'd just like to add here that I'm corresponding with another of the listed scientists on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He too is a serious researcher and apparently it was the idea of Open Publishing that drew him there - something that seems to be common among those who signed up. He too has his doubts. I'm going to send him links to texts about the recent development.

Henry62 · 29th April 2009, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

That so-called paper has already been debunked. No legitimate scientific journal will print it.

Galileo, could you explain your words, please?
Thanks.

I wrote a little update in my article:

"According to Danish science news site Videnskab.dk, a controversial article claiming that World Trade Center dust samples contained "active thermitic material" was published in the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" without the knowledge or approval of the editor in chief, Marie-Paule Pileni.
The editor in chief has resigned over the incident.
Says Pileni:
“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html

Best wishes,
Henry

T.A.M. · 29th April 2009, 01:32 PM

The editor in chief in question, is an expert in "nanocrystals", so she is obviously qualified, over all, in the area of Physical Chemistry dealing with small things, but specialists/experts at this level can be very specific in terms of what they consider to be their "area of expertise", so perhaps the chemical compound/reaction "thermite" was what she was referring to as being out of her area of expertise...

Just a thought.

TAM

phunk · 29th April 2009, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

But doesn't the article suggest that her decision was based on her lack of qualifications? Clearly, she is qualified, so I'm curious why the article suggests otherwise.

"Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

No, to me it suggests that the paper was:

A) Published without the knowledge of the editor
B) Outside the scope of the journal it was published in

Lenbrazil · 29th April 2009, 06:13 PM

Here's the spin on the resignation from a 911 Blogger contributor

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19963

One legitimate point is made her claim that the paper was outside her area of expertise seems disingenuous:

Quote:

One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.".

Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that. I'll quote you an excerpt of her resume:

Quote:

OTHER ACTIVITIES
1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research.
1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”.
1987-1988: Member of the ’“Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale” (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in Chemistry

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society.
Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.
2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives)

LABORATORY MANAGEMENT
2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N.
1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems)

Then again presumably she meant dust analysis and analytic chemistry is "outside her field of expertise". But her complaint the paper was published without her approval also was a bit disingenuous.

bio · 30th April 2009, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Fjolle

"I was really unsure about them in advance because I had repeatedly asked for information about the magazine without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals and is a bad sign. Now I see that it is because it is a bad magazine, "says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues:

That is ridiculous. These things have not stopped her, to become editior in chief at Bentham.

Lenbrazil · 30th April 2009, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by bio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fjolle
"I was really unsure about them in advance because I had repeatedly asked for information about the magazine without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals and is a bad sign. Now I see that it is because it is a bad magazine, "says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues:

That is ridiculous. These things have not stopped her, to become editior in chief at Bentham.

The more accurate translation is "“I was in fact in doubt about them before" I.E. Before this incident not before it existed obviously it wouldn't "appear on the list of international journals" before it went to business.

She also said “There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it” so her doubts came after she joined the journal.

beachnut · 30th April 2009, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

Here's the spin on the resignation from a 911 Blogger contributor

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19963

One legitimate point is made her claim that the paper was outside her area of expertise seems disingenuous:

Then again presumably she meant dust analysis and analytic chemistry is "outside her field of expertise". But her complaint the paper was published without her approval also was a bit disingenuous.

She meant the paper was biased political claptrap; outside her expertise. She was slamming the paper! A polite slam. It is an intellectual slam for an anti-intellectual paper.

I bet they had the paper rejected until the bulk of veil political crap was removed and the publisher wanted the money.

Galileo · 30th April 2009, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Henry62

Galileo, could you explain your words, please?
Thanks.

I wrote a little update in my article:

"According to Danish science news site Videnskab.dk, a controversial article claiming that World Trade Center dust samples contained "active thermitic material" was published in the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" without the knowledge or approval of the editor in chief, Marie-Paule Pileni.
The editor in chief has resigned over the incident.
Says Pileni:
“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html

Best wishes,
Henry

Pileni is a disgruntled former employee. Her statements have nothing to do with the science of the thermite paper.

She should have spoke up lat year.

T.A.M. · 30th April 2009, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Pileni is a disgruntled former employee. Her statements have nothing to do with the science of the thermite paper.

She should have spoke up lat year.

You have made a direct accusation here (that Pileni is a disgruntled employee). If this is your theory with regard to her resignation, please provide proof of (A) her status as an EMPLOYEE of Bentham, and (B) that she was "disgruntled".

Thank you.

TAM

16.5 · 30th April 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Pileni is a disgruntled former employee. Her statements have nothing to do with the science of the thermite paper.

She should have spoke up lat year.

We have already pointed out two things:

1. she was not an employee.

2. how could she have spoken up last year when she said she did not even know of the paper until last week??

Spud1k · 30th April 2009, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Pileni is a disgruntled former employee. Her statements have nothing to do with the science of the thermite paper.

She should have spoke up lat year.

Ermm... How could she if she only just became aware of it?

Mr.D · 30th April 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

But doesn't the article suggest that her decision was based on her lack of qualifications? Clearly, she is qualified, so I'm curious why the article suggests otherwise.

"Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

A more likely interpretation: In academic circles it's generally considered ... let's go with the word "impolite" ... to refer to another scientist's paper in print using the F-word^(*), so Pileni is leaving the authors an out even as the resignation sends a pretty clear message as to her professional opinion of both the paper and the journal.

^(*) Fraud - what did you think I meant?

Spud1k · 1st May 2009, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by Mr.D

A more likely interpretation: In academic circles it's generally considered ... let's go with the word "impolite" ... to refer to another scientist's paper in print using the F-word^(*), so Pileni is leaving the authors an out even as the resignation sends a pretty clear message as to her professional opinion of both the paper and the journal.

^(*) Fraud - what did you think I meant?

I think there could be other reasons. Quite clearly the paper is driven by agenda, not science, which should be left out of any scientific journal, so that on its own is a good reason to walk out in disgust. But more than that, she is probably trying to avoid getting dragged into any kind of scientific debate about the content. Besides the fact that I imagine she had much better things to do anyway, she would in all probability become a target for the kook armchair science brigade. Because they are much more adept at character assassination than scientific debate, they would quickly adopt her as the new figurehead of the heretical voices opposing their creed, much in the same way as happened to the Popular Mechanics folks. Maybe some of them have already, I don't know...

CHF · 1st May 2009, 12:36 PM

The debate over whether or not Bentham and Steven Jones' "peer-review" are credible is a pointless one.

It doesn't matter one bit whether truthers like Swing or Galileo think Bentham is legit, because NO ONE ELSE DOES! In the scientific/academic community, Bentham is irrelevant.

Jones' latest attempt to by-pass the peer-review process has failed miserably - just as it did when he was passing off his own journal as being a peer-review publication.

So the question now becomes: what are Jones and his followers gonna do about it? I would suggest submitting their work to a journal that isn't a complete joke, but we all know what the result of that would be, don't we? (hint: it involves a lot of red ink).

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for topic

Arus808 · 1st May 2009, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

So the question now becomes: what are Jones and his followers gonna do about it? I would suggest submitting their work to a journal that isn't a complete joke, but we all know what the result of that would be, don't we? (hint: it involves a lot of red ink).

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for topic

as demonstrated on Coast to Coast last night, they are doing nothing and are still using the publication in that fraud of a journal as means to say "hey we got published!" ... and of course the coast to coast crowd wont go as far as checking the credibility of said journal.

Panoply_Prefect · 3rd May 2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect

I'd just like to add here that I'm corresponding with another of the listed scientists on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He too is a serious researcher and apparently it was the idea of Open Publishing that drew him there - something that seems to be common among those who signed up. He too has his doubts. I'm going to send him links to texts about the recent development.

Sorry, make that ex member. He also resigned when he read the article and the background on how it came to be published.

T.A.M. · 3rd May 2009, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect

Sorry, make that ex member. He also resigned when he read the article and the background on how it came to be published.

I think this is a trend you will see. We often hear from the truth movement that most scientists say nothing, not because they disagree, but because they are in the dark about "the truth". These two recent resignations, however, prove that this is not the case, and that most legitimate scientists will quickly distance themselves from any connection to biased, poorly produced pseudoscience such as the Jones' paper.

TAM

28th April 2009, 03:05 PM	#124
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,737	Originally Posted by Galileo She is a disgruntled former employee, with sour grapes added. Cripes, you know the guy is trolling. She wasn't an employee. Bentham Open Publishing has one guy on the payroll. His job is to cash Jones' freaking checks.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,737

28th April 2009, 03:20 PM	#126
Kent1 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,177	The trolling on this site is getting out of hand.
Kent1 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,177

28th April 2009, 03:41 PM	#128
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,340	Just so I'm sure I got my facts straight. This thread is about an "article" that was published in a "pay to publish" journal that came out last year that has had no impact in the scientific world. Now the editor and Chief has resigned, more or less confirming what has been said about this article (and the journal) all along (By us, the only people that paid attention). Now my only question is, Why should we care?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

28th April 2009, 04:05 PM	#131
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,429	One of our commenters has provided a more easily digested translation of the article: Quote: It created a great attention, surprise and suspicion when the Open Chemical Physics Journal in April published a scientific article on remains of nanothermite which were found in great amounts in the dust from the WTC. One those most surprised is apparently the editor in chief of the journal. Professor Marie-Paule Pileni first heard about he article when videnskab.dk wrote to her to ask for her professional assessment of the article’s content. The e-mail got her to immediately close the door to the journal. “I resign as the editor in chief”, was the abrupt answer in an email to videnskab.dk
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

28th April 2009, 11:59 PM	#132
apathoid Government Loyalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Virgo Supercluster Posts: 2,699	So, can anyone summarize exactly what happened here? Apparently this editor quit because she found out that some crappy chemistry paper was published in the journal she's in charge of without her knowledege or consent? Do I have that right? If thats the case, that's one well oiled machine of a journal they've got there at Benthem!
	__________________ Nature abhors a moron. -H.L. Mencken

28th April 2009, 03:00 PM	#121
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Galileo NIST relieved after 'missing link' found [url]http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i51615#this[/url AHEM Bottom of page, after the main article: "The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious."

28th April 2009, 03:01 PM	#122
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Galileo She is a disgruntled former employee, with sour grapes added. No she isn't.

28th April 2009, 03:04 PM	#123
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth No she isn't. Yes, she is. She is a former employee who wrote a irrelevant rant. She is very disgruntled. That makes her a disgruntled former employee. The Bentham Journal has higher standards. Maybe she can get hired by NIST for their next project on UFOs?

28th April 2009, 03:13 PM	#125
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by 16.5 Bentham Open Publishing has one guy on the payroll. His job is to cash Jones' freaking checks. I wonder if he had to pay three times, for each of his submissions.

28th April 2009, 03:47 PM	#129
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by DGM Now my only question is, Why should we care? For the entertainment value of rubbing the twoofers noses in it.

28th April 2009, 03:59 PM	#130
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,576	Originally Posted by Galileo No, it wasn't a rubber stamp. You may believe that. But the paper was first submitted last August and was peer reviewed for 8 months, much longer than normal, because it was such a~~n explosive~~ bad paper. Fixed.

29th April 2009, 12:23 AM	#133
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,903	Quote: An interview with a dolt ... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c9d_1239493431 No wonder she resigned, the guy is an idiot in that video! He can't say if it was 10 tons or 100 tons of thermite. How pathetic; just an insane person ranting about thermite. He and 8 other failed researchers had to pay to publish poppycock. The experts of the paper have different ways it was applied! Ceiling tiles, paint, and pallets trucked in secretly past WTC security and all the independent security of the tenants at the WTC. The paper is easily seen as a fraud to rational people.
	Last edited by beachnut; 29th April 2009 at 12:42 AM.

29th April 2009, 01:32 AM	#134
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Galileo can you site a real scientific source for this claim, or did you just make it up as usual? Galileo, speaking as someone who's dealt with the peer-review process from both sides, your description of it doesn't seem based in reality. Every time I've been asked to review a paper, it's been by an editor of the magazine, and I've never dealt directly with an author. And the peer reviewer never needs to forward the paper to the editors, because the editors have already got it. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member Last edited by Dave Rogers; 29th April 2009 at 01:36 AM.

29th April 2009, 02:10 AM	#136
Spud1k +5 Goatee of Pedantry Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: UK Posts: 844	Originally Posted by apathoid So, can anyone summarize exactly what happened here? Apparently this editor quit because she found out that some crappy chemistry paper was published in the journal she's in charge of without her knowledege or consent? Do I have that right? If thats the case, that's one well oiled machine of a journal they've got there at Benthem! In any normal journal, the buck is supposed to stop at the editor for the scientific content of a paper, but Benthem Open seem to operate a curious policy of putting the publication team (whoever they are) in charge and simply using the position of editor as a figurehead. Given that it tarnishes your reputation if a bad paper goes out goes out on your watch as an editor, I'm not surprised she wanted out. I'm also not surprised she didn't comment on the quality of the paper; that would have made her a target for the WAC-jobs, if she isn't already. This should serve as a warning to scientists everywhere: Under no circumstances have anything to do with Benthem Open. Open access may be the way of the future, but it'll be a non-starter if you don't have scientific quality and integrity.
	__________________ "I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer "Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson Last edited by Spud1k; 29th April 2009 at 03:43 AM. Reason: Typo + grammar pedantry

29th April 2009, 03:53 AM	#137
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	Originally Posted by pgimeno I'm puzzled by Niels O. Andersen's role. Now he announces he's quitting. Strange. His explanation were: Quote: Men fagligt lå tidsskriftets i kanten af min ekspertise, og da jeg havde takket nej til at være editor på to artikler, besluttede jeg mig for, at jeg hellere ville bruge min tid på noget andet,« fortæller fysiker Nils O. Andersen, dekan på Det Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet og editor på The European Physical Journal D. My amateuristic translation: "The paper was at the fringe of the area of my expertise, and since I've declined editing two articles, I decided that I'd rather spend my time doing other things, says Nils O Andersen (...) The paragraf just prior to that one also have him saying that he likes the idea of Open Access, since he dislikes that commercial companies makes money of the work of scientists: Quote: Open access er en spændende udvikling, og som princip skal man prøve ideen af, for der er ingen grund til, at de kommercielle forlag tjener penge på vores arbejde. Translation: Quote: Open access is an exciting development and as a princip you should test the idea that commercial publishers make money on our work. Because there is no reason they should.

29th April 2009, 07:50 AM	#139
BasqueArch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Whispering Glades, Fredonia Posts: 1,376	Originally Posted by Sunstealer Yes, I looked her up - ://xxxxxxxxxxxPileni You would expect someone in that position to be able to see what an absolute crock of crap the paper is. That's interesting, none of her recent published journal articles are in Bentham's Open Journals.

29th April 2009, 11:44 AM	#141
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by BasqueArch That's interesting, none of her recent published journal articles are in Bentham's Open Journals. Interesting? Why? What is your line of thought on this? My thoughts are that she is a serious, well respected researcher, and that she became editor in chief for the publication (A) before she knew anything about it, and (B) because she believes in the Open Access concept as a means to allow publishing of papers that might have merit, but might not get into more established journals. I do not think she would want to have her own work published in a journal she is editor and chief of...conflict of interest. TAM

29th April 2009, 12:14 PM	#142
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by Lenbrazil Only at Bentham. It is my understanding editors normally read papers before submiting them to the reviewers, reviewers they, not the commercial publisher have chosen That's part of the problem: "I can not accept that the issue is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. " She is however a leading expert in nanometerials. Saying she isn't qualified may be a polite way of avoiding saying it's crap. Truthers talent for unintentional irony nver ceases to amaze me. But doesn't the article suggest that her decision was based on her lack of qualifications? Clearly, she is qualified, so I'm curious why the article suggests otherwise. "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

29th April 2009, 12:54 PM	#143
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Interesting? Why? What is your line of thought on this? My thoughts are that she is a serious, well respected researcher, and that she became editor in chief for the publication (A) before she knew anything about it, and (B) because she believes in the Open Access concept as a means to allow publishing of papers that might have merit, but might not get into more established journals. I do not think she would want to have her own work published in a journal she is editor and chief of...conflict of interest. TAM I'd just like to add here that I'm corresponding with another of the listed scientists on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He too is a serious researcher and apparently it was the idea of Open Publishing that drew him there - something that seems to be common among those who signed up. He too has his doubts. I'm going to send him links to texts about the recent development.
	Last edited by Panoply_Prefect; 29th April 2009 at 01:18 PM.

29th April 2009, 01:18 PM	#144
Henry62 Student Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 36	Originally Posted by Galileo That so-called paper has already been debunked. No legitimate scientific journal will print it. Galileo, could you explain your words, please? Thanks. I wrote a little update in my article: "According to Danish science news site Videnskab.dk, a controversial article claiming that World Trade Center dust samples contained "active thermitic material" was published in the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" without the knowledge or approval of the editor in chief, Marie-Paule Pileni. The editor in chief has resigned over the incident. Says Pileni: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html Best wishes, Henry
Henry62 Student Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 36

29th April 2009, 01:32 PM	#145
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	The editor in chief in question, is an expert in "nanocrystals", so she is obviously qualified, over all, in the area of Physical Chemistry dealing with small things, but specialists/experts at this level can be very specific in terms of what they consider to be their "area of expertise", so perhaps the chemical compound/reaction "thermite" was what she was referring to as being out of her area of expertise... Just a thought. TAM

29th April 2009, 05:01 PM	#146
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,913	Originally Posted by RedIbis But doesn't the article suggest that her decision was based on her lack of qualifications? Clearly, she is qualified, so I'm curious why the article suggests otherwise. "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad." No, to me it suggests that the paper was: A) Published without the knowledge of the editor B) Outside the scope of the journal it was published in
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,913

29th April 2009, 06:13 PM	#147
Lenbrazil Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: BKAC Posts: 870	911 Blogger spins the news Here's the spin on the resignation from a 911 Blogger contributor http://www.911blogger.com/node/19963 One legitimate point is made her claim that the paper was outside her area of expertise seems disingenuous: Quote: One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.". Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that. I'll quote you an excerpt of her resume: Quote: OTHER ACTIVITIES 1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research. 1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”. 1987-1988: Member of the ’“Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale” (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in Chemistry EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP 2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society. Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis. 2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society. CONSULTING EXPERIENCE 1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives) LABORATORY MANAGEMENT 2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N. 1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems) Then again presumably she meant dust analysis and analytic chemistry is "outside her field of expertise". But her complaint the paper was published without her approval also was a bit disingenuous.

30th April 2009, 12:02 AM	#148
bio Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Germany Posts: 883	Originally Posted by Fjolle "I was really unsure about them in advance because I had repeatedly asked for *information about the magazine without hearing from them.* It does *not appear in the list of international journals* and is a bad sign. Now I see that it is because it is a bad magazine, "says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues: That is ridiculous. These things have not stopped her, to become editior in chief at Bentham.
	__________________ January 10, 2003, Senator Charles Grassley (R): "not only has no one in government been fired or punished for 9/11, but several others have been promoted."

30th April 2009, 06:57 AM	#149
Lenbrazil Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: BKAC Posts: 870	Originally Posted by bio Quote: Originally Posted by Fjolle "I was really unsure about them in advance because I had repeatedly asked for information about the magazine without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals and is a bad sign. Now I see that it is because it is a bad magazine, "says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues: That is ridiculous. These things have not stopped her, to become editior in chief at Bentham. The more accurate translation is "“I was in fact in doubt about them before" I.E. Before this incident not before it existed obviously it wouldn't "appear on the list of international journals" before it went to business. She also said “There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it” so her doubts came after she joined the journal.

30th April 2009, 09:22 AM	#150
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,903	Originally Posted by Lenbrazil Here's the spin on the resignation from a 911 Blogger contributor http://www.911blogger.com/node/19963 One legitimate point is made her claim that the paper was outside her area of expertise seems disingenuous: Then again presumably she meant dust analysis and analytic chemistry is "outside her field of expertise". But her complaint the paper was published without her approval also was a bit disingenuous. She meant the paper was biased political claptrap; outside her expertise. She was slamming the paper! A polite slam. It is an intellectual slam for an anti-intellectual paper. I bet they had the paper rejected until the bulk of veil political crap was removed and the publisher wanted the money.

30th April 2009, 10:17 AM	#151
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Henry62 Galileo, could you explain your words, please? Thanks. I wrote a little update in my article: "According to Danish science news site Videnskab.dk, a controversial article claiming that World Trade Center dust samples contained "active thermitic material" was published in the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" without the knowledge or approval of the editor in chief, Marie-Paule Pileni. The editor in chief has resigned over the incident. Says Pileni: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html Best wishes, Henry Pileni is a disgruntled former employee. Her statements have nothing to do with the science of the thermite paper. She should have spoke up lat year.

30th April 2009, 02:01 PM	#152
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by Galileo Pileni is a disgruntled former employee. Her statements have nothing to do with the science of the thermite paper. She should have spoke up lat year. You have made a direct accusation here (that Pileni is a disgruntled employee). If this is your theory with regard to her resignation, please provide proof of (A) her status as an EMPLOYEE of Bentham, and (B) that she was "disgruntled". Thank you. TAM

30th April 2009, 02:24 PM	#153
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,737	Originally Posted by Galileo Pileni is a disgruntled former employee. Her statements have nothing to do with the science of the thermite paper. She should have spoke up lat year. We have already pointed out two things: 1. she was not an employee. 2. how could she have spoken up last year when she said she did not even know of the paper until last week??
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,737

30th April 2009, 02:33 PM	#154
Spud1k +5 Goatee of Pedantry Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: UK Posts: 844	Originally Posted by Galileo Pileni is a disgruntled former employee. Her statements have nothing to do with the science of the thermite paper. She should have spoke up lat year. Ermm... How could she if she only just became aware of it?
	__________________ "I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer "Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson

30th April 2009, 03:04 PM	#155
Mr.D Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: NWO Paradise Posts: 1,178	Originally Posted by RedIbis But doesn't the article suggest that her decision was based on her lack of qualifications? Clearly, she is qualified, so I'm curious why the article suggests otherwise. "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad." A more likely interpretation: In academic circles it's generally considered ... let's go with the word "impolite" ... to refer to another scientist's paper in print using the F-word^(), so Pileni is leaving the authors an out even as the resignation sends a pretty clear message as to her professional opinion of both the paper and the journal. ^() Fraud - what did you think I meant?

1st May 2009, 01:54 AM	#156
Spud1k +5 Goatee of Pedantry Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: UK Posts: 844	Originally Posted by Mr.D A more likely interpretation: In academic circles it's generally considered ... let's go with the word "impolite" ... to refer to another scientist's paper in print using the F-word^(), so Pileni is leaving the authors an out even as the resignation sends a pretty clear message as to her professional opinion of both the paper and the journal. ^() Fraud - what did you think I meant? I think there could be other reasons. Quite clearly the paper is driven by agenda, not science, which should be left out of any scientific journal, so that on its own is a good reason to walk out in disgust. But more than that, she is probably trying to avoid getting dragged into any kind of scientific debate about the content. Besides the fact that I imagine she had much better things to do anyway, she would in all probability become a target for the kook armchair science brigade. Because they are much more adept at character assassination than scientific debate, they would quickly adopt her as the new figurehead of the heretical voices opposing their creed, much in the same way as happened to the Popular Mechanics folks. Maybe some of them have already, I don't know...
	__________________ "I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer "Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson

3rd May 2009, 11:04 AM	#159
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect I'd just like to add here that I'm corresponding with another of the listed scientists on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He too is a serious researcher and apparently it was the idea of Open Publishing that drew him there - something that seems to be common among those who signed up. He too has his doubts. I'm going to send him links to texts about the recent development. Sorry, make that ex member. He also resigned when he read the article and the background on how it came to be published.

3rd May 2009, 11:15 AM	#160
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect Sorry, make that ex member. He also resigned when he read the article and the background on how it came to be published. I think this is a trend you will see. We often hear from the truth movement that most scientists say nothing, not because they disagree, but because they are in the dark about "the truth". These two recent resignations, however, prove that this is not the case, and that most legitimate scientists will quickly distance themselves from any connection to biased, poorly produced pseudoscience such as the Jones' paper. TAM