It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Steven Jones Thermite Paper: "Printed without permission"- Editor in Chief Quits.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
An article about the explosives in the World Trade Center was brought in a scientific journal without the editors being made aware of it.

In part: (roughly translated)


Printed without permission

A phone call reveals that chief Marie-Paule Pileni never been informed that the article would be put at The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal juggernaut Bentham Science Publishers.

"They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I did not mean that the article was published. I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France .

She feels not only snigløbet but wonder also that the article on dust tests after the terrorist attack on U.S. 11 September 2001 have actually found their way to The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

"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. Sentence, "notes the former chief.


Here is the original link: Please open it with Google Translator..or something better.

translated link

Edit to get rid of the non working link. - sorry

[edit on 28-4-2009 by CameronFox]

[mod edit: fixed link for translation]

[edit on 28-4-2009 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
These are some words of the former Editor:


"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:

"There are no references to The Open Chemical Physics Journal of other articles. I have two colleagues who agreed to publish an article that never has been quoted anywhere. If nobody reads it, it is bad magazine, and there is no need for it, "reads the harsh verdict.

-Marie-Paule Pileni



[edit on 28-4-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Cam - if you edit your links so they don't stretch the page so much and get rid of that annoying animated avatar I might take the time to read your thread


At the moment it is just aggravating my headache!


Edit:

Thanks for fixing the link (now how about the avatar?
)

[edit on 28/4/2009 by alienanderson]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by alienanderson
 


I removed the bad link.

Sorry about your headache. Advil, a Diet Coke, and a back rub works wonders for me.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
So, what say all of you who stand behind Mr Jones? Once again it would seem that he is stepping out of bounds with a 'peer' reviewed paper.

How many times before he is tossed aside and a truth bought forward.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Ah shoot; it was not approved by the CIA, the FBI, the DIA, the Department of Defense, Popular Mechanics, NIST, the Bush Crime Family, nor the New World Order elite.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Strawman.

It was not approved by the editor in chief of this so called peer reviewed journal. As was noted a long time ago, this journal does not follow proper procedures.

I'm sure your next post SPreston, I am predicting will be followed with a cute little slogan boasting how 911 was an inside job.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by SPreston
 


911 was an inside job



I could not have said it better myself. Thank you.



[edit on 4/28/09 by SPreston]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
An article about the explosives in the World Trade Center was brought in a scientific journal without the editors being made aware of it.

In part: (roughly translated)


"says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France .


I have to wonder if she has any conflicts of interest as being a professor specializing in nanomaterials? Just a thought.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Her conflict I assume was that a paper was under review since August of 08, sent back to the authors three times for errors, and she was left out of the loop. (just my .02)



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

Just one opinion so far. This does not invalidate Professor Jones results. How many people have done the peer review on Jones’ report?


She feels not only snigløbet but *WONDERS* also that the article on dust tests after the terrorist attack on U.S. 11 September 2001 have actually found their way to The Open Chemical Physics Journal.


So Marie-Paule Pileni is “wondering” about the dust! Another desperate attempt to smear Professor Jones work with out using any science nice try camron.



"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. Sentence, "notes the former chief.


Where that does prove that Professor Jones scientific journal is all wrong? (no where!)


If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal.


Sorry lady, but no one ask you did they.

This woman is only given her “opinions” nothing more. Where is Marie-Paule Pileni scientific journal disproving Jones work? (there is none!)

The only thing that Marie-Paule Pileni is wondering is how Jones dust particles article made it in her journal without her permission. But does this disprove science? No!


"It surprised me, and it is unfortunate if it discredits our work. But her departure will not alter our conclusions, because it is a purely human thing, she is sur over. I still believe that we have made chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our investigation, she must love to criticize us for it, "said Niels Harrit, Associate Professor of Chemistry Institute of the University of Copenhagen.


translate.google.com...://videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/chefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontrover siel_artikel_om_911&sl=da&tl=en&history_state0=


I think Marie-Paule Pileni will get over herself. Yet another desperate attempt to smear Jones work. I expect worst yet, You all would be amazed how much money one can take, to walk away from their own Publications, and write alarming emotional opinions to disregard true science.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with Dr. Jones or how it had anything to do with him at all in regards to who printed what without telling who. Once he submits his paper to the journal, it's out of his hands.

This thread is an attempt to attack a prominent physicist, yet the thread isn't even related to the person the OP is trying to attack. Nice job OP!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Bonez... can you please point out where I was discrediting Mr. Jones in this thread?

It is a thread regarding the way the paper was "published." The contents of Mr. Jones paper is already being discussed on another thread.

Now, I trust that you have read the article I linked. If so, do you believe that the "Jones" paper was properly peer reviewed?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Just one opinion so far. This does not invalidate Professor Jones results. How many people have done the peer review on Jones’ report?


The person is/was the editor in chief. This thread is not about discrediting Jones, but the process Brentham followed.




So Marie-Paule Pileni is “wondering” about the dust! Another desperate attempt to smear Professor Jones work with out using any science nice try camron.


Again, not the work sir.



"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. Sentence, "notes the former chief.



Where that does prove that Professor Jones scientific journal is all wrong? (no where!)


Does the editor in chief say that the work was wrong?


If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal.



Sorry lady, but no one ask you did they.


YOU GOT IT!!! That is the problem. NO ONE ASKED THE EDITOR IN CHIEF. As is required with the peer reviewed process.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

Sorry lady, but no one ask you did they.

YOU GOT IT!!! That is the problem. NO ONE ASKED THE EDITOR IN CHIEF. As is required with the peer reviewed process.


BTW camron I don’t think Jones report is finished from being peer reviewed, furthmore, this article has nothing do with disproving Jones report.

I have to agree with Bones, that this thread was a lame attempt to discredit Professor Jones, nice try.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   


It was not approved by the editor in chief of this so called peer reviewed journal.


If she is the editor-in-chief, shouldn't she know what is going to be printed in her magazine? Isn't that her job?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoony

If she is the editor-in-chief, shouldn't she know what is going to be printed in her magazine? Isn't that her job?


Yes, the reason why she quit. The staff did it behind her back. The staff failed to follow proper procedure.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Here is the procedure regarding submissions to Bentham's journals, from their own website.

www.bentham.org...


To facilitate speedy and cost-effective submission of abstracts and manuscripts, an online submission and tracking service via Internet is being offered. Once the Editor-in-Chief of the journal has accepted your abstract, we would prefer that you submit your full manuscript online via our online submission service available at www.bentham-mps.org


One assumes that an abstract was submitted and that Prof. Pileni then rejected the abstract? And then it was included in the journal over her objection? How could the journal possibly have gone to press or online publication without her knowing exactly what was going to be in it, having approved all the abstracts and then presumably supervised the peer review process?

A lot smells fishy about this story. I wonder if Pileni herself was pressured to make some kind of stink about the publication of Jones' work as a way of undercutting the effect of it's legitmate appearance in the journal.

Here is an excerpt from the OP's linked article. Am I the only one who thinks this is hilarious. I wish Prof. Pileni was one of my teachers. It would be a laugh a minute.


"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:

"There are no references to The Open Chemical Physics Journal of other articles. I have two colleagues who agreed to publish an article that never has been quoted anywhere. If nobody reads it, it is bad magazine, and there is no need for it, "reads the harsh verdict.

The professor says that she a few years ago were invited to be editor of the journal, which would open new opportunities for new researchers, and because she supports the idea of open journals in which articles are accessible to all, she said yes.

"It is important to let people try to succeed, but we must not be allowed to all, and this is something decidedly rubbish. I try to be a serious researcher, and I do not want my name associated with this kind, "ends Marie-Paule Pileni.


Peer review and tenure are two of the most overrated institutions in academe.


[edit on 29-4-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Here is the procedure regarding submissions to Bentham's journals, from their own website.

www.bentham.org...


To facilitate speedy and cost-effective submission of abstracts and manuscripts, an online submission and tracking service via Internet is being offered. Once the Editor-in-Chief of the journal has accepted your abstract, we would prefer that you submit your full manuscript online via our online submission service available at www.bentham-mps.org


You should have stopped right there. The rest of you post is filled with typical truther paranoia, assumptions, and accusations.

Emphasis mine:


One assumes that an abstract was submitted and that Prof. Pileni then rejected the abstract? And then it was included in the journal over her objection? How could the journal possibly have gone to press or online publication without her knowing exactly what was going to be in it, having approved all the abstracts and then presumably supervised the peer review process?

A lot smells fishy about this story. I wonder if Pileni herself was pressured to make some kind of stink about the publication of Jones' work as a way of undercutting the effect of it's legitmate appearance in the journal.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
You should have stopped right there. The rest of you post is filled with typical truther paranoia, assumptions, and accusations.


Continuing in the same vein.

Maybe other people on the editorial board realized that they had been dealing with a lunkhead in Pileni all along and decided that her participation in the process wasn't really helping matters anyway.

All's well that ends well. Jones' paper got published and the journal was rid of Pileni.

Thankyou for bringing good news to our attention Cameron.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join