charmord meden agan | Ernestor a écrit :
Cet article n'est pas une preuve :
1) Conclusion largement sujet à contreverse et qui a même été contredite par plusieurs experts ici même
2) Publié dans une revue de merde qui accepte tout et n'importe quoi (il n'y a donc pas de cautionnement scientifique par la communauté du contenu de cet article)
|
Sur le un, je suis globalement d'accord et je suis très content d'entendre enfin quelqu'un reconnâitre que ce sujet fait l'objet d'une controverse scientifique.
Sur le 2 en revanche, sans revenir sur un débat qui a déjà duré, je ne crois que l'on puisse affirmer sur la base du hoax dont les défenseurs de la théorie officielle semblent faire très grand cas, que les affirmations suivantes des auteurs de l'article et de leurs commentateurs soient fausses c'est-à-dire mensongères :
Citation :
The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26).
(...)
Some observations about the production of this paper:
1. First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: http://cmm.nbi.ku.dk/ Molecular Structures on Short and Ultra Short Timescales
A Centre under the Danish National Research Foundation
The Centre for Molecular Movies was inaugurated 29th November 2005, at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. The Centre is made possible through a five year grant from the Danish National Research Foundation (see e.g. www.dg.dk). We aim to obtain real time “pictures” of how atoms are moving while processes are taking place in molecules and solid materials, using ultrashort pulses of laser light and X-rays. The goal is to understand and in turn influence, at the atomic level, the structural transformations associated with such processes.
The Centre combines expertise form Risø National Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, and the Technical University of Denmark in structural investigation of matter by synchrotron X-ray based techniques, femtosecond laser spectroscopy, theoretical insight in femtosecond processes, and the ability to tailor materials, and design sample systems for optimal experimental conditions.”
We understand that the Dean of Prof. Harrit’s college, Niels O Andersen, appears as the first name on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Bentham Science journal where the paper was published.
2. Second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU. http://www.physics.byu.edu/images/people/farrer.jpg
3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper.
4. Kudos to BYU for permitting Drs. Farrer and Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the paper. Dr. Farrer was formerly first author on this paper. But after internal review of the paper, BYU administrators evidently disallowed him from being first author on ANY paper related to 9/11 research (this appears to be their perogative, but perhaps they will explain). Nevertheless, the paper was approved for publication with Dr. Farrer’s name and affiliation listed and we congratulate BYU for this. We stand by Dr. Farrer and congratulate his careful scientific research represented in this paper. 5. Perhaps now there will finally be a review of the SCIENCE explored by Profs. Harrit and Jones and by Drs. Farrer and Legge and their colleagues, as repeatedly requested by these scientists. We challenge ANY university or established laboratory group to perform such a review. This paper will be a good place to start, along with two other peer-reviewed papers in established journals involving several of the same authors:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/ [...] 2/00000...
Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Authors: Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
The Environmentalist, August, 2008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 6. James Hoffman has written three essays further explaining the implications and results of the paper. Thank you, Jim, for this work! http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/index.html
7. Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France, proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers.
|
http://www.911truth.org/article.ph [...] 4150711883
Il est également intéressant de noter la raison invoquée par l'auteur pour expliquer que les revues plus prestigieuses à laquelle le collectif s'est adressé n'aient pas donné suite à la demande de publication au sein de leurs colonnes :
Citation :
We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
|
Ce n'est pas une raison de type "conspirationniste" donc.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/s [...] l%209%2F11
Un commentaire de cet article donne plus de détails sur le peer-reviewing :
Citation :
Jones has stated elsewhere before that he has authored or co-authored over forty peer reviewed publications, so I think when he states this is the "toughest peer-review" he has "ever had" it is a good place to start in determining if the peer-review was adequate.
Then we have the fact that BYU administrators conducted internal reviews of the paper, and allowed Dr. Jeffrey Farrer,who is their current Transmission Electron Microscopy Lab Manager, to be listed, with BYU affiliation, as the second author of the paper.
And as Jones pointed out...
"Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU)."
Furthermore, in this interview, Jones points out that...
"Usually peer-review is done completely anonymously, but it is possible for a reviewer to identify himself. In this case one of the reviewers identified himself as a physics professor, a fellow of the American Physical Society. This fellow is well credentialed, with something like 80 peer-reviewed papers of his own."
Note that...
The American Physical Society is the world's second largest organization of physicists, and publishes more than a dozen science journals, including the world renowned Physical Review and Physical Review Letters." Finally...
"Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers." So considering all of this, I take it back to Jones...
"Here's what you need to know(especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
|
Ma question est simple : La publication d'un hoax dans une revue différente mais appartenant certes au goupe Bentham est-elle une preuve du caractère mensonger des affirmations relativement précises relatives au peer-reviewing appliqué à l'article - compte tenu de l'anonymat des referees qui proviennent des auteurs de cet article-? |