|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
b) it is a peer reviewed technical journal
|
What was the peer review process of the paid-to-place letter? What is the status of this journal in civil engineering? Do its papers get cited frequently? Is this an A level, B level, C level journal? Jones is no slouch in his field. Why isn't he publishing a real *paper* in a top flight journal? |
Why do keep saying paid-to-place? It was demonstrated on page 4 by a very kind poster that it isn't uncommon for authors to pay a publication fee.
It is a relatively new journal, that is true.
Why don't we discuss the contents of the letter MM2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Why do keep saying paid-to-place? It was demonstrated on page 4 by a very kind poster that it isn't uncommon for authors to pay a publication fee. |
This is why I have little respect for what Mnhnhyouh posted on this thread.
It is uncommon and indeed irregular in all the professional journals that I know, read, cite, and contribute to. That is, with respect to history, politics, international relations, and area studies. I imagine it is the same for medicine and the law. End of story.
If Mnhnhyouh wants to encourage you to believe that it is common for authors to pay publication fees with respect to the hard sciences that is his business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Why don't we discuss the contents of the letter MM2? |
Don't you mean, "Why don't we re-hash every single "troofer" thread on this board and achieve the same results?"
Here's a clue: People would much rather make fun of "troofers" and show them the fallacies in their arguments, sources, and "facts" (what a fukking joke...) than actually debate with them. |
Care to point out my fallacies. Or are you just trolling like usual? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Why do keep saying paid-to-place? It was demonstrated on page 4 by a very kind poster that it isn't uncommon for authors to pay a publication fee. |
This is why I have little respect for what Mnhnhyouh posted on this thread.
It is uncommon and indeed irregular in all the professional journals that I know, read, cite, and contribute to. That is, with respect to history, politics, international relations, and area studies. I imagine it is the same for medicine and the law. End of story.
If Mnhnhyouh wants to encourage you to believe that it is common for authors to pay publication fees with respect to the hard sciences that is his business. |
You have little respect for the facts that he posted?
That is odd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Why do keep saying paid-to-place? It was demonstrated on page 4 by a very kind poster that it isn't uncommon for authors to pay a publication fee. |
This is why I have little respect for what Mnhnhyouh posted on this thread.
It is uncommon and indeed irregular in all the professional journals that I know, read, cite, and contribute to. That is, with respect to history, politics, international relations, and area studies. I imagine it is the same for medicine and the law. End of story.
If Mnhnhyouh wants to encourage you to believe that it is common for authors to pay publication fees with respect to the hard sciences that is his business. |
You have little respect for the facts that he posted?
That is odd. |
It seems to be, that in most journals you do not pay to publish. That alone however is not enough to make this letter lack credibility. Combined with the following it does though.
* new journal, not recognized in its field.
* all the links you posted called this a paper and referred to it as a paper. Shows either basic misunderstanding of the scientific process or
propaganda.
Everything added together it is not a very credible piece of research. It only asks questions and does not attempt to answer any.
Really..in any other field would you expect scientists to produce something like this? It looks like something that should be in a newspaper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
It is uncommon and indeed irregular in all the professional journals that I know, read, cite, and contribute to. That is, with respect to history, politics, international relations, and area studies. I imagine it is the same for medicine and the law. End of story.
If Mnhnhyouh wants to encourage you to believe that it is common for authors to pay publication fees with respect to the hard sciences that is his business. |
I read a blanket statement that no quality journal is pay to publish. That is patently not true, both journals I talked about are of very high quality. It may be that it is more common in the hard sciences, not an area Gopher seems to have much professional experience with.
It is the case for more and more physics journals. Further, it seems that there is an increasing trend towards online live review in Physics. A paper gets published and there are discussion pages behind the paper so you can see what a diversity of people think about the paper.
I have 9 peer reviewed publications, in marine ecology. I am not an expert in scientific publishing, but am not a neophyte either. The shutting out of Joe public from access to the research they funded is not something I condone, and would prefer a pay not to publish but after you have published system if it would make it access free for all.
I agree it is not that common. I am not saying that the journal under question is a good one, it is way to early to see if it ever will be.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| I read a blanket statement that no quality journal is pay to publish. |
It is a blanket statement that such a thing raises red flags, at least from where I stand. But in this particular case, the totality of the circumstances surrounding this so-called publication, including the fact that its authors had to pay to publish the letter, sink it, as far as its credibility goes. Even more so because they had to hype it all over the internet to convince others it was real.
You have unwittingly given Loose_ends a straw to grasp at in his neverending quest to convince people here that his conspiracy-theory is accepted in the mainstream -- or even on its fringes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| I read a blanket statement that no quality journal is pay to publish. |
It is a blanket statement that such a thing raises red flags, at least from where I stand. But in this particular case, the totality of the circumstances surrounding this so-called publication, including the fact that its authors had to pay to publish the letter, sink it, as far as its credibility goes. Even more so because they had to hype it all over the internet to convince others it was real.
You have unwittingly given Loose_ends a straw to grasp at in his neverending quest to convince people here that his conspiracy-theory is accepted in the mainstream -- or even on its fringes. |
Just correcting mistakes. I dont care if he sinks or swims with or without my straw. I dont think much about the incident that is being referred to, so I dont really care. I didnt even know what a truther was until I stumbled across this.
Sort of a lame name really. A piss poor attempt at gaining some sort of credibility with bad marketing.
For me it is not the pay to publish that sinks it. It is the journal's lack of standing. This is the sort of journal, were it one in my field, where one would publish gut content work. You could then reference that tiny piece of stuff for a much broader study. That way you keep the gut content stuff out of the main paper(s) making them trimmer and more to the point.
After they publish enough gut content papers (or whatever) they start getting other stuff that is better. This is how journals grow.
If you have a good paper then 1) it isnt a letter and 2) it goes in a good journal.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Really..in any other field would you expect scientists to produce something like this? It looks like something that should be in a newspaper. |
Well said. Jones KNOWS better. That's the kicker. If you read a history of cold fusion, Jones emerges as the moral center, the respectable scientist who did not over reach in his conclusions and did not try to conduct science by press conference. Jones simply knows what it takes. A paper in a recognized refereed journal. Attend serious engineering conferences and get a member to referee a paper/talk. At least Jones showed some good sense and bolted from scholars for truth when a couple cofounders started raving about direct energy weapons and mini-nukes. Jesus.
Personally, I ascribe his behavior to the phenomenon of the respectable scientists who never made any breakthroughs in what began as a promising career and firmly fell under "average" (although in science being under the big tent pole of the bell curve is certainly not average, it's amazing). He's taken a hard long look at his career and realized he's not made the impact he hoped for when he was 21. And suddenly they jump into woo. Psychic research and the like. I fear Jones is following this course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khenan
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Edit: Sorry! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Really..in any other field would you expect scientists to produce something like this? It looks like something that should be in a newspaper. |
Well said. Jones KNOWS better. That's the kicker. If you read a history of cold fusion, Jones emerges as the moral center, the respectable scientist who did not over reach in his conclusions and did not try to conduct science by press conference. Jones simply knows what it takes. A paper in a recognized refereed journal. Attend serious engineering conferences and get a member to referee a paper/talk. At least Jones showed some good sense and bolted from scholars for truth when a couple cofounders started raving about direct energy weapons and mini-nukes. Jesus.
Personally, I ascribe his behavior to the phenomenon of the respectable scientists who never made any breakthroughs in what began as a promising career and firmly fell under "average" (although in science being under the big tent pole of the bell curve is certainly not average, it's amazing). He's taken a hard long look at his career and realized he's not made the impact he hoped for when he was 21. And suddenly they jump into woo. Psychic research and the like. I fear Jones is following this course. |
MM2 you and JMO post very good points. From an objective point of view Jones hasn't submitted anything that can be characterized as hard science.
He has a few articles published in his own journal, peer reviewed by his own friends, fellow members of the truth movement. They all cite each others work and publish their articles in the journal.
Now it is a bit whacky I must admit. I thought like that too when I first looked into it.
You have to understand that "truthers" actually believe there are bad guys, the NWO, sort of speak that pulled off 9-11, and could possibly do it again.
Everyone is scrambling to convince everyone and they aren't really taking the time to be reflective. They are learning as they go.
Jones claims he has a team working on the microspheres and "thermite" chips. We'll see I guess.
Lets just put it this way. Any published article about 9-11 is big news on 911blogger. A "letter"/"paper" without results or scientific method in a peer-reviewed (pay to publish) civil engineering journal is a sign from you know who.
Also lets keep in mind he claims one more article is yet to come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
MM2 you and JMO post very good points. From an objective point of view Jones hasn't submitted anything that can be characterized as hard science.
He has a few articles published in his own journal, peer reviewed by his own friends, fellow members of the truth movement. They all cite each others work and publish their articles in the journal.
Now it is a bit whacky I must admit. I thought like that too when I first looked into it.
You have to understand that "truthers" actually believe there are bad guys, the NWO, sort of speak that pulled off 9-11, and could possibly do it again.
Everyone is scrambling to convince everyone and they aren't really taking the time to be reflective. They are learning as they go.
Jones claims he has a team working on the microspheres and "thermite" chips. We'll see I guess.
Lets just put it this way. Any published article about 9-11 is big news on 911blogger. A "letter"/"paper" without results or scientific method in a peer-reviewed (pay to publish) civil engineering journal is a sign from you know who.
Also lets keep in mind he claims one more article is yet to come. |
You're about the only person I'll debate 9/11 with. Come over to our side. You've got the critical thinking skills. What's holding you back? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
MM2 you and JMO post very good points. From an objective point of view Jones hasn't submitted anything that can be characterized as hard science.
He has a few articles published in his own journal, peer reviewed by his own friends, fellow members of the truth movement. They all cite each others work and publish their articles in the journal.
Now it is a bit whacky I must admit. I thought like that too when I first looked into it.
You have to understand that "truthers" actually believe there are bad guys, the NWO, sort of speak that pulled off 9-11, and could possibly do it again.
Everyone is scrambling to convince everyone and they aren't really taking the time to be reflective. They are learning as they go.
Jones claims he has a team working on the microspheres and "thermite" chips. We'll see I guess.
Lets just put it this way. Any published article about 9-11 is big news on 911blogger. A "letter"/"paper" without results or scientific method in a peer-reviewed (pay to publish) civil engineering journal is a sign from you know who.
Also lets keep in mind he claims one more article is yet to come. |
You're about the only person I'll debate 9/11 with. Come over to our side. You've got the critical thinking skills. What's holding you back? |
The evidence of a "cover-up", at some level, is simply overwhelming. As ex-CIA analyst, Ray McGovern (google him if you don't know who he is) says, "The question is, what's being covered up?"
I'm the first to admit that there is no direct evidence for CD (including hard scientific reporting), yet the circumstantial evidence is continuing to mount. This is the evidence I am willing to debate.
I'm still waiting for NIST to publish their report on WTC7. If this report is done welll, ie they make public their tests (ie, computer models) or do some real fire modeling to confirm their hypothesis, I'll have to reconsider my position on CD.
But let us reflect on what they are purposing. A single column failure is claimed to have cause complete, symmetrical and near-free fall collapse. Something which I might remind you, has only ever been achieved via a CD in the past.
NIST needs to convince me that fire can cause an entire building to collapse in on itself, just like a CD.
Lets hope they support their hypothesis in a more realistic and transparent way than they did for the towers.
Everyone who has been critical of NIST (and that includes non truther engineers too) will be watching very closely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
The evidence of a "cover-up", at some level, is simply overwhelming. As ex-CIA analyst, Ray McGovern (google him if you don't know who he is) says, "The question is, what's being covered up?" |
I'll agree the government isn't telling us everything. However, what I think the Truthers fail to give serious consideration is the government is simply trying to cover up that it was asleep at the switch. It didn't make it happen. I didn't let it happen. It happened and the government used it for all its worth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BreakfastInBed
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Location: Gyeonggi do
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ I agree with your line of thinking. It is way more likely that any cover ups are of incompetencies or embarrassing mistakes or practices than nefarious smoke-filled room plots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
