Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Truth movement letter published in civil engineering journal

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Truth movement letter published in civil engineering journal
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject:

JMO wrote:

Its not a paper. Its not a journal with a reputation in its field.

Do you agree with those two statements, LE?

The links you posted are scoring this as some kind of victory. They constantly call this letter a paper. They are ready to mail it to Chomsky as some kind of proof. It just doesn't seem very scientific to me.

I doubt the motive behind this. Firstly I don't see the point of this letter.

Why not take each segment from that letter and do a paper on each one. Submit those papers.

At the minute it looks just like propoganda. I'll come back when papers are actually being published in reputable journals..you know like real scientists do.

Yes it isn't a research paper with a results section.

Yes it is a new journal.

On those points I agree.

I believe this to be a good start. Jones et al. will have to build on their research, much like other scientists do.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject:

I have assumed nothing.

After another poster cited this...

Quote:

Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution...

you responded that it was common for authors to recommend their own reviewers. No, in fact, it is not. It is entirely irregular.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:04 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

I have assumed nothing.

After another poster cited this...

Quote:

you responded that it was common for authors to recommend their own reviewers. No, in fact, it is not. It is entirely irregular.

You then take this to mean that Jones chose his peer reviewers.

Nice try Gopher.

You fail again.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:00 am Post subject:

No, I do not see that. We are discussion separate issues in any case. I am questioning this so-called journal's policies and procedures re: letters and articles and the normal submission and review process as a measure of the credibility of anything and everything that it "publishes." You are intent on defending this one particular thing you call a peer-reviewed article to the death. The fact that you have to force your case onto others, inch by inch, never seems to occur to you. Persuasion should work differently, Loose_ends. Also, a poster called JMO addresses your letter/paper in specific points on this thread's pp. one and two. You have not responded to him as of yet. Why not?

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:20 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

The fact that you have to force your case onto others, inch by inch, never seems to occur to you. Persuasion should work differently, Loose_ends.

Persuasion has nothing to do with this. The facts are glaring us all straight in the face.

If it seems I am pushing or forcing, inch by inch, it has nothing to do with the validity of the evidence, but everything to do with the state of denial your country is currently in.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:32 am Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

...the state of denial your country is currently in.

"My country." So this really comes down to Candian preaching and moral superiority, looking down your nose, so to speak, just in a conspiracy-theory context, re: the dreaded United States and Great Satan, home of the stupidest people on the planet. Seen it a million times in a million varieties here and elsewhere, Loose_ends. No thanks.

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:48 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

...the state of denial your country is currently in.

Indeed.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:04 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

...the state of denial your country is currently in.

Here you go with your dichotomies again...

Whatever makes it easy for you to plug your Gopher.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:44 am Post subject:

JMO wrote:

Its not a paper. Its not a journal with a reputation in its field.

Yeah. Jones is no backyard scientist. He was a tenured science professor from a major university. He should know all about publishing. A letter to the editor of a third rate for-pay online journal he should know very well would not cut it with true peers in that field.

He should be coming on laying down the scientific smack down on the confused sheep in the field in their lair: Nature, Science, a top civil engineering journal, a conference. That's what the truthers would want, right? That's what a real scientist would do. Since he's NOT doing this, you have to wonder. Why?

Now I've heard claims the letter was peer reviewed. Well, what does that mean in the context of this journal? The Answers in Genesis new creationism journal claims peer review. The ID people at the Discovery Institute are always claiming certain books have been peer reviewed.

At the end of the day, there's peer review and then there's peer review. And at the end of that day, a letter or even a paper in a third rate journal no one but the author and his mother read is going to mean exactly nothing.

Further, this letter doesn't appear to be Jones submitting his claims of evidence for bomb matter.

Quote:

"We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors �pancaked� to account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives" the paper concludes.

I dunno. Weak.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:02 am Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

Gopher wrote:

I have assumed nothing.

After another poster cited this...

Quote:

you responded that it was common for authors to recommend their own reviewers. No, in fact, it is not. It is entirely irregular.

You then take this to mean that Jones chose his peer reviewers.

Nice try Gopher.

You fail again.

What are you talking about? You posted what you claimed was a Scientific paper, when it was clear that:

a) the person bought his degree

b) it had not been peer-reviewed

You have been owned so badly on this thread, I pity you.

mnhnhyouh

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

mnhnhyouh wrote:

Paying for publication is not excluxive to dodgy journals. IIRC the journal Marine Biology, the best in it's field, had a publication field. Or maybe that was Oecologica, equally good.

I would be interested to see something more concrete and specific on this.

In my view, paying between $600 to $900 to submit a letter or an article while picking your own "reviewers," seems like (a) creating a conflict-of-interest contractual relationship with the journal as a client and not a contributor and (b) nullifying the peer-review process at the same time.

I just linked AHR and LARR's policies and procedures, in part, above. Can you please link the same to one or two of the journals you reference here?

Here you go, the first is a good quality journal with a reasonable citation rate, Limnology and Oceanography, they charge

Limnology and Oceanography charges wrote:

Publication Charges

Authors are responsible for paying the following publication charges:

Color figures (one page or any portion of a page) when set from hard copy cost $600 for one figure, and $150 for each subsequent figure to a maximum of 8 figures. If figures are submitted in an approved digital format costs are reduced to $500 for one figure, and $50 for each subsequent figure to a maximum of 8. Costs for combinations of hard copy and digital submissions, or for situations that are not covered here, will be determined by the editorial office.
$50 per typeset page (including web appendices), if either the lead author or the corresponding author is an ASLO member. If neither lead or corresponding author is an ASLO member, the charge is $75 per page.

http://www.aslo.org/lo/instructions/authors.html

and this one is from the Journal of Applied Physics

Journal of Applied Physics wrote:

Page & Open Access Charges
To support the cost of wide dissemination of research results through publication of journal pages and production of a database of articles, the author's institution is requested to pay a page charge of $60 per page (with a one-page minimum) and an article charge of $20 per article. For Errata the minimum page charge is $10, with no article charge.

For any regular, published article that exceeds ten (10) journal pages, a mandatory $150 page charge will be added for each page in excess of ten (10) pages.

http://jap.aip.org/jap/pubchgs.jsp

In my opinion this is a good move. Before, in the dark days, Joe public had access to the scientific research they paid for. They could walk into a university library and take any journal off the shelf and read it. For a small charge they could photocopy it.

But most journals are online now, which is a fantastic when you are doing research. You can easily find the articles, download the pdf and print it off. No more trying to work out what that last page says, the one you photocopied at the end of a 3 hour session in the library.

But you need to be a member of the university to log on to the subscribed journals site. Joe public can no longer do this. So charging for publication allows the journal to supply their product for free. Joe is still paying for it, as the researcher, paid by Joe, still has to pay the journal, but now Joe can access it from home.

Nevertheless, there are journals and there are Journals. There are citation factors calculated yearly that show how often a journals articles are cited in the general pool of literature. Scientists try to get published in top ranked journals as this helps disseminate their article better, as more people read it, and advances their career. Anybody publishing in a new journal does so because they cant get into a better one.

h

CentralCali

Joined: 17 May 2007

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject:

Jones is not a professor. He was a professor at BYU. He retired while he was on a paid forced leave of absence. Here is the Wiki article about him. I especially enjoyed the comment there about how he got his "9/11" stuff published.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

Gopher wrote:

I have assumed nothing.

After another poster cited this...

Quote:

you responded that it was common for authors to recommend their own reviewers. No, in fact, it is not. It is entirely irregular.

You then take this to mean that Jones chose his peer reviewers.

Nice try Gopher.

You fail again.

Um..if you read the title of the thread it clearly state, "letter"

a) who bought what? (are you sure you are in the right thread)

b) it is a peer reviewed technical journal

You fail.

Have a nice day.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject:

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?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

b) it is a peer reviewed technical journal

Maybe because since he got 'kicked' out of his university, no one takes him seriously...excepting keen truthers?

The Economist once noted that "It is not uncommon for scientists to go off the rails near the end of their career".

Jones certainly seems to fit the mold.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe