|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
5th March 2012, 08:45 AM | #1 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
How did crackpot Electric Universe papers get published in a peer-reviewed journal?
The Open Astronomy Journal, part of Bentham OPEN, has laudable aims:
Quote:
None of the five papers in that special issue shows any sign of having been reviewed by anyone who is familiar with contemporary astronomy, let alone plasma astrophysics. The journal itself seems reputable - it has some heavyweights in charge of the Editorial Board, and the other papers and Special Issues it's published are not the least bit cranky (so it seems to me). So how did the journal screw up so badly? |
5th March 2012, 08:53 AM | #2 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
Pathetically low standards. A real shame that such ignorant and mendacious nonsense gets any notice.
|
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
5th March 2012, 08:58 AM | #3 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Did you read the editorial?
Quote:
|
5th March 2012, 09:05 AM | #4 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
5th March 2012, 09:11 AM | #6 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
5th March 2012, 09:16 AM | #7 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the subject matter/topic, Skeptic Ginger, but the editorial itself is appallingly bad, when viewed from the perspective of basic historical accuracy.
For example, consider this: "The work on plasmas and other electromagnetic phenomena has inspired some people to examine astronomical phenomena in these terms and this has resulted in the so-called Electric Universe idea as expounded, " Taken in context, this strongly implies that Hannes Alfvén did not do any work on plasma cosmology. If nothing else, this is revisionism of the worst possible kind. Equally appalling is the total censorship - by omission - of the entire field of plasma astrophysics. At the very least, an editorial on this topic, in a journal with the aims as stated, should include mention of the sort of research covered in WOPA 2010, especially as Dunning-Davies writes "However, after those early years of the century, the emphasis seems to have shifted to explanations of phenomena purely in terms of gravitational effects as far as most mainline research has been concerned." (this sentence is about as close to academic libel - or slander, I get the two confused - as never mind). |
5th March 2012, 09:23 AM | #8 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
I did mean Ellis, but also Lorenzo Iorio. The Editorial Advisory Board contains some heavyweights, e.g. Niel Brandt.
From phunk's link, it would seem that the gulf between aims and implementation, at Bentham, is not limited to just one journal. Oh, I just noticed: Jeremy Dunning-Davies is also on the Editorial Advisory Board! |
5th March 2012, 09:26 AM | #9 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
5th March 2012, 09:36 AM | #10 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3,475
|
Here's Jeremy Bentham's dead body spinning away. Perhaps he's heard what use his name is being put to.
Sadly when Bentham (the open access journal not the philosopher) claim that work has been peer reviewed that doesn't mean that it's been peer reviewed. http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55756/ |
__________________
EDL = English Disco Lovers |
|
5th March 2012, 09:42 AM | #11 |
Masterblazer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 6,843
|
|
__________________
Almo! My Music Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia |
|
5th March 2012, 09:51 AM | #12 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
Thanks for this. Could you name one or two please?
In light of what's been posted so far, I guess - concerning these somewhat cranky papers - the question is whether it's likely they were actually reviewed? And if reviewed, is it likely what was actually published likely incorporated the changes the reviewers suggested/demanded? It's one thing to have a sloppy review process; quite another to have none at all (but advertise, aggressively it seems, that you do). |
5th March 2012, 09:55 AM | #13 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
Was it published on the first of April?
|
5th March 2012, 09:56 AM | #14 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
|
5th March 2012, 09:59 AM | #15 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
|
|
5th March 2012, 10:22 AM | #16 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
How did this happen?
Bentham Open uses a pay-for-publication model. Although I understand that some Bentham Open journals are well-regarded, we have already seen several incidents in which that model has led to embarrassing results. After one such incident, The Open Chemical Physics Journal's editor-in-chief resigned because a paper by Niels Harrit et al., 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe', was published without her knowledge. (It later came out that both of the reviewers for that paper were hard-core 9/11 truthers.) Jeremy Dunning-Davies, who edited the 27 August 2011 issue of The Open Astronomy Journal, is a contributor to the Thunderbolts.info web site and a supporter of Stephen Crothers (who failed to complete his PhD at the University of New South Wales because he made essentially the same kinds of mistakes that Farsight has been promoting in this forum, and then refused to listen to reason). Dunning-Davies is also the current President of the Telesio Galilei Association. In 2008, both Dunning-Davies and Stephen Crothers received Gold Medal Awards from that organization. Dunning-Davies has written an entire book, Exploding a Myth: Conventional Wisdom or Scientific Truth?, in which he complains that the big bad scientific establishment isn't paying enough attention to him, to Stephen Crothers, or to the Electric Universe. The question of how these articles got published probably reduces to the question of how Jeremy Dunning-Davies became the editor of this issue. Given its publication model and the history of some other Bentham Open journals, I wonder whether Dunning-Davies, Smith, and Scott might have just paid for it. |
5th March 2012, 10:25 AM | #17 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
5th March 2012, 10:55 AM | #18 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Bentham OPEN are a series of brand-new spam journals. Bentham is trying to make money off of the journal-running business---and that doesn't come from subscriptions, it comes from author-fees. They're launching new "titles" as fast as they can and sending out spam email begging for "editors". I've gotten these myself, complete with "based on your distinguished record, we would be honored" boilerplate.
So, short answer: Jeremy Dunning-Davies responded to a spam email from Bentham; now he's an "editor". He sends an email to his boss saying "Hey, I've got four buddies that would like to Also, look at the rest of this journal's work. (Not hard: we have only about ten articles a year---there are 3x as many people on the "editorial board" as there are authors in the table of contents.) I see an article by Ruggerio Santilli, an outsider who's known to (a) file lawsuits against people who fail to cite his theory-that-overturns-quantum-mechanics-and-nuclei and (b) send spam to academic physicists announcing that his foundation has nominated him for the Nobel Prize. Oy. I see a dark-energy "theory" by Leong Ying (no academic affiliation) which is claimed to follow from Santilli's theory. Oy oy. I see something that looks like a modified-gravity paper from someone named Worsley (no other papers, may be a KCL grad student or something?) which, in the acknowledgements, thanks John Duffield AKA Farsight who has a reputation here already. Oy oy oy. So: it's not "plasma cosmology gets published in a peer-reviewed journal". It's "plasma cosmologists and Ruggero Santilli find a friendly pay-to-play spam journal" |
5th March 2012, 11:13 AM | #19 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,212
|
I wish some publishers would understand that the pay to publish Open Access model does not mean "vanity publishing in science".
|
5th March 2012, 11:30 AM | #20 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
I'd like to point out some other oddities in the editorial board.
Let's look at the board of directors of a company called "Steriwave": Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Francesco Fucilla, Waldyr Rodriguez, Franco Selleri ... Let's look at the board of staff of a company called "Yellow Energy PLC": Waldyr Rodriguez, Francesco Fucilla, Franco Selleri, Christian Corda ... Let's look at the editorial board of Ruggero Santilli's personal crackpot journal "Hadronic Mechanics": Ruggero Santilli, Christian Corda (editor in chief), Jeremy Dunning-Davies ... Let's look at the board of directors of the crackpot-award-giving "Telesio Galilei Academy of Sciences": Waldyr Rodriguez, Franco Selleri, Jeremy Dunning-Davies. In the membership list we see Christian Corda, Wallace Thornhill. Let's keep reading: there's Reginald Cahill, Florentin Smarandache, and (for crying out loud) Wladimir Guglinski. Who has WON the Telesio Galilei awards? Why, look! It's Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Wallace Thornhill, Stephen Crothers, Wladimir Guglinski, Franco Selleri, Florentin Smarandache. (Keep reading: Myron Evans!!) Draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is that the Santilli-ites and the plasma cosmologists have built a "walled garden". They found institutes to give one another awards, they take over journals and give one another special issues, and every so often their fake-prestige is enough to get a government grant or two. Bentham got roped in. |
5th March 2012, 11:58 AM | #21 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
Amazing. ~20 posts and (apart from DRD quoting two sentences and questioning their inferences) not a single bit of science has been brought up about why this paper is wrong. We get a detailed series of Ad Homs directed at the board, the journal and various other things. I haven't even read it, but can pretty much guarantee it has glaring errors just from a quoted sentence above. Anything claiming synonymity between plasma cosmology and "the electric universe" is going to likely be an odd mix of speculative non peer reviewed EU ideas that are grounded in the more scientifically and mathematically competent PC models.
Please people, this is the science and technology section. Not the attack the messenger and assassinate all characters involved without addressing the whole point section. < Thats called the 9/11 conspiracy forum. What is so scientifically wrong and annoying about this paper that has elicited such unscientific behaviour from every poster so far? |
5th March 2012, 12:04 PM | #22 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
If I publish a paper advocating phlogiston theory, I should not expect any discussion of the science whatsoever.
|
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
5th March 2012, 12:06 PM | #23 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,212
|
Funny: http://www.iitpm.org/board.html shows Corda in cahoots with Dunning Davies and Iorio and Santilli again.
I find it somewhat curious that the first names of most of the editorial advisors are not listed. For example H. Kleinert might be Hagen Kleinert, but who knows? |
5th March 2012, 12:23 PM | #24 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
Highly amusing how DRD said they were heavyweights then, because in that case Peratts "The physics of the plasma universe" which has received nearly 100 citations alone, and not a single paper refuting anything within it, makes him instantly more 'heavyweight' just by one book than any of the people involved in this that DRD considers respectable heavyweights.
Count citations to his other papers and he's practically a nobel laureate in comparison Incorrect, they reference Peratts Physics of the plasma universe (AL Peratt - Physics of the Plasma Universe, XII, 372 pp. 208 …, 1992 - adsabs.harvard.edu), which is still in my university library and still used as a reference by many plasma physicists. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?...2C5&as_sdtp=on Yes a bit dated now, but the age of a paper does not effect its veracity, especially if no issues have been brought up by any of the near hundred citations it's received since. What he says is, to an extent, true. Go back more than 10-20 years and you would primarily get explanations for how various interstellar phenomenon are created in relation to the effects of mass and gravity on particles, such as gravitational collapse, angular momentum etc. The consideration of more complex interstellar currents and EM forces on ions/plasma/gasses is certainly not totally ignored today, but often possible hierarchical EM current systems are overlooked, maybe due to their low energy values and very hard to detect spectra. |
5th March 2012, 12:37 PM | #25 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
^ Nice to see those two posts just as logically fallacious as the first lot. Wouldn't want to break a trend.
|
5th March 2012, 12:40 PM | #26 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
Nice to see you again Z.
Nice to see that you acknowledged a key part of my post. If I haven't made it clear so far, let me try again: I think it's screamingly obvious that all five papers in that Special Issue ("#002, in Volume 4 (2011)") were not reviewed by people with a good grasp of contemporary astrophysics (or at least that part of it relevant to the explicitly stated content of that issue)*. And this stands in direct contradiction with the stated aims of the journal. I've already mentioned a couple of things a competent reviewer would have picked up in a heartbeat, concerning the editorial (do you dispute my observations, by the way?). Here are a couple of things that jumped out at me, in each of the other four papers; they are all things a competent reviewer should have redlined, and demanded be fixed before recommending - to the editor - that the paper be published: The Smith paper 1): "One of the problems with CMB theory is that IF it is the most distant thing we can see, (a remnant of the Big Bang) then we should observe the silhouettes of galaxy clusters and other major cosmic structures imposed on this image, which we do not [5]." - this is a grotesque mis-characterization of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, and it even mis-states the conclusions of the paper it cites. The Smith paper 2): "Another example (Fig. 2) shows a highly redshifted quasar which is observed to be in front of low redshift and visually opaque galaxy NGC 7319 [12]." - the patent absurdity of this should be obvious to you Z: "visually opaque galaxy"?!? We're inside a galaxy, yet we can clearly see external galaxies (hence ours cannot be 'visually opaque'); NGC 7319 is no different in this regard; and the source cited doesn't arrive at the conclusion Smith states. The Scott paper 1): "An example of an appalling lack of knowledge about how magnetic fields originate is the following extract from an article in New Scientist [4]:" - whatever New Scientist is, it cannot be accepted as a primary source, in an astrophysics paper (there are several other examples of just this). The Scott paper 2): "mainstream astronomers have not yet begun to acknowledge the importance of electric currents – neither on the Sun, or anywhere else for that matter." - the simplest of literature searches shows this to be false. The Ransom paper: (see later post) The Thornhill paper 1): "For instance, consider the invention of ‘dark matter’ that responds to gravity but is electromagnetically undetectable. Matter is an electromagnetic phenomenon, so how is this possible?" - Thornhill may never have heard of neutrinos, but his reviewer certainly should have! The Thornhill paper 2): "It remains to be established whether that radiation [the CMB] is cosmic or local. The shadowing effect expected from concentrations of nearby galaxies has not been found." - two for the price of one sentence: in addition to the howler over the Sunyaev-Zel'doich effect, Thornhill seems to have done no literature search on observational tests of the non-local nature of the CMB (if he had, he would have had to re-write that part of the sentence). * OK, caveat: they may have been reviewed, but if they were, the reviewer(s)' suggestions/etc were ignored |
5th March 2012, 12:56 PM | #27 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
Up to your usual tricks, eh Z?
I said "some heavyweights", I did not say that every one was a heavyweight. Shall I remind you of your strange ideas concerning numbers? In this case, two out of four is "some" ...
Quote:
Sorry Z, I think that the alternate universe in which you live works differently than this one. There are hundreds if not thousands of papers on plasma astrophysics, published in peer-reviewed journals. A great many of those have been published since 1992. In your alternate universe, it may be perfectly acceptable for the vast majority of published research in the field that your special issue is focused on to be totally ignored; however, in this universe, such an omission is blatant intellectual dishonesty, especially when committed by the editor himself.
Quote:
Nice try. Z, we're not talking about some hand-waving piece of fluff published on the Thunderdolts website; this is - let me remind you - the editorial of a special issue of a journal which "aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers ..." |
5th March 2012, 01:00 PM | #28 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,212
|
You mean to imply there might not be something curious going on when exactly the same scientists give each other medals and crop up together in companies and institutions that have not many connections to other scientific institutions? Why would someone think that might be a bit problematic when it comes to peer review?
|
5th March 2012, 01:10 PM | #29 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
Dude, I hate to break this to you, but many of the posts in this thread have gone a long way to answering the question I posed.
Shall I remind you of it? Here you are: "How did crackpot Electric Universe papers get published in a peer-reviewed journal?" Part of the answer seems to be: "that journal is one of several; other journals in the stable have published papers that were not peer-reviewed; clearly the journals have not lived up to their aims". Another part seems to be: "Jeremy Dunning-Davies is editor of that Special Issue; he is also a member of the Editorial Advisory Board, whatever reviewing was done was likely done by him". If that's so, then a close look at his affiliations and associations is germane to understanding why he (apparently) failed so blatantly in his duty (as editor, and, perhaps, as reviewer). Shall I go on? |
5th March 2012, 01:13 PM | #30 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,212
|
See this article re: Open Access, vanity publishing and low standards. Especially this quote:
Quote:
|
5th March 2012, 01:18 PM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
Your first post was quite good DRD, shame about the second. I didn't even know there were four papers, I will have to read them now I guess.
Your second post is rather amuzing. Not only is the Ad Hom aimed directly at me without even trying to hide its purpose, but entire paragraphs are dismissed because I used a plural and not a singular, followed by you doing the same again but this time a singular as a plural. Couple more Ad-homs. And avoiding addressing my point made with the last paragraph by bolding two words you seem to take aversion to, ending in a strawman, tied up with a reference to thunder-woo. So you are alleging academic misconduct of some sort? Thats a pretty serious allegation to make. I suggest either backing it up with evidence or retracting it. Since either is unlikely (I may be wrong, not seen you post in these sort of threads yet) I guess that if you are correct I can expect: To not find many respectable scientists who have referenced his work, that they belong to institutions that have not many connections to other institutions and that the journals the citations are published in are not prestigous or well regarded by the astronomical community, yes? |
5th March 2012, 01:22 PM | #32 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
|
5th March 2012, 01:25 PM | #33 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
5th March 2012, 01:28 PM | #34 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
For those who can't be bothered to look at the papers themselves, here's a scratch-the-surface sample of what's scientifically wrong with the editorial by Dunning-Davies and with the four single-author articles by Smith, Scott, Ransom, and Thornhill. Starting with the editorial by Jeremy Dunning-Davies:
Donald E Scott's paper may be the least bad of the lot. For the most part, it repeats formulas from undergraduate physics while pretending mainstream physicists ignore those formulas. In the second paragraph of his section III, Scott constructs a caricature of magnetic reconnection and then attacks that strawman. As I proved in the "Electric Sun" thread, magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations. Scott discredits himself whenever he pretends otherwise. Ransom's paper is more looks-like-a-bunny pseudoscience. If Michael Mozina's running difference images convinced you that the sun has a semi-solid iron crust, then you might be impressed by Ransom's argument. Thornhill's abstract begins thusly:
Originally Posted by Wal Thornhill
Originally Posted by Wal Thornhill
|
5th March 2012, 01:41 PM | #35 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
^ thanks.
And every time he does so a woo-woo somewhere dies of shame on his behalf, and I cringe a little. I've yet to see Thornhill do more maths than division or multiplication. At least some of the other EU proponents can do the more advanced maths; I find it weird that they get along with Thornhill at all though. You either shun maths and thus are left with a non science, or you include maths and can start to develop a science. EU proponents seem to flip flop routinely from one side of that argument to another.
Quote:
... I will try to get round to it at some point, but I'd much rather just read scotts paper and maybe one more. I just don't like the older more respectable plasma cosmology material being misrepresented as synonymous with electric universe 'theories'. |
5th March 2012, 01:45 PM | #36 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
I guess.
Shame that you didn't the first time.
Quote:
Start with the clearly stated aims of OAJ (you can look them up, they're in the OP). Assume the publishers are not cynical or incompetent. Is the Dunning-Davies editorial, in that Special Issue, consistent with those aims? Clearly, it is not. Specifically, would it be acceptable for the editor of a special issue, one which has the stated scope of this one, to completely ignore everything published - in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - in the field of plasma astrophysics, in the last 20 or so years? No, it would not be acceptable. You seem to think - based on what you posted - that it would be acceptable. Now, if I - here - now call you ignorant, am I dishing out an ad hom? Or am I stating a fact? One that is both objective, and independently verifiable ...
Quote:
Another: he seems to have published essentially nothing, in peer-reviewed journals, for at least a decade (according to ADS). A third: an arXiv preprint of which he is co-author was "withdrawn by arXiv administrators due to excessive unattributed and verbatim text overlap with the pre-existing Wikipedia article on redshift". |
5th March 2012, 02:04 PM | #37 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
OK, I see what you're saying.
Given that, I think there's even more reason to be very annoyed (at least). Let me quote the last sentence, which is part of what you quoted in your earlier post (I added some bold):
Originally Posted by Dunning-Davies
Oh, and to head of a possible objection: it's true he uses the term "cosmology" and not "astrophysics"; however, as the immediately preceding sentence is "The first article by Dave Smith is meant to be a general overall view of the field and its general ideas. The other articles by Donald Scott, C. J. Ransom, and Wallace Thornhill give much more detail of some specific topics", and as those four papers cover topics that overlap extensively with plasma astrophysics, include topics such planetary craters, the Sun, galaxies, quasars, ... |
5th March 2012, 02:22 PM | #38 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
Curious.
That webpage is dated 2010, and the list is entitled (my bold) Proposed Scientific Advisory Board Members. Also on this list is Herman J. Mosquera Cuesta. That makes three (of four, George Ellis is the odd man out) members of the Editorial team (i.e. not counting the OAJ Editorial Advisory Board) on this list. (not much effort on proof-reading the list either, "Professor Marco Morelli of the Fondazione Prato Ricerche" is listed twice!). |
5th March 2012, 03:25 PM | #39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th March 2012, 03:30 PM | #40 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
DRD, there is nothing academically fraudulent at all about proposing new competing theories to existing ones. To an extent you have to ignore the existing theories if they are competing theories, yet the data that has lead to the theories does indeed have to be explained.
How would new discoveries ever be made or incorrect theories proved wrong if any new theory not based on previous models was considered academic fraud? Thats the totally opposite way that science should work. I've actually scanned some of the papers now and I have to say they seem to be of a higher callibur than previous publications that fall under the EU bracket. [I should add (as I can't edit my post) the only reason I brought up Peratt + Plasma Cosmology here is because his book 'physics of the plasma universe' is one of the few references in the opening paper, so is obviously considered by him one of the seminal publications in this area, even if its merging with eu theories is unfortunate due to EU theories previous record of sloppy work] |
Thread Tools | |
|
|