Chief editor of The Open Chemical Physics Journal resign

[onthebottom]

.......

....... The fact he works for a legitimate university is a positive, but I also know that it is not everything. There is a biologist (I forget his name at the moment) who works of a legitimate American university but has been converted to the creationist position. The fact that none of his peers agree with him and the fact he can no longer get published in real biology journals tells me something about his work. .........

I have an ex-brother in Law who's a Chemistry Professor as a prestigious US University, he's one of the leading anti-Global Warming voices..... He's brilliant, and nuts.

OTB

 

[danmand]

I have an ex-brother in Law who's a Chemistry Professor as a prestigious US University, he's one of the leading anti-Global Warming voices..... He's brilliant, and nuts.

Of course he is, in your view, and likely you are in his. But that does not change
his competence in chemistry, otherwise he would not stay at his university.

Likewise, Niels Holger Harrit may be misguided in his views on how the WTC towers
fell, but it does not change his competence in chemistry, i.e. scanning electron
microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential
scanning calorimetry (DSC).

 

[onthebottom]

Of course he is, in your view, and likely you are in his. But that does not change
his competence in chemistry, otherwise he would not stay at his university.

Likewise, Niels Holger Harrit may be misguided in his views on how the WTC towers
fell, but it does not change his competence in chemistry, i.e. scanning electron
microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential
scanning calorimetry (DSC).

That was the point I was making, smart competent people can be wrong - happens all the time.

At the risk of speaking for someone and fuji, I think what they're saying is that if a competent scientist doesn't expose his work to credible peer review it's not (yet) worth considering. That peer review process is what validates the work of smart competent people, because as we've just discussed, they can be wrong.

OTB

 

[fuji]

The former chief editor of that journal stated that in her opinion the article that Harrit published was not chemistry and that is why she thinks it ought not to have been published in a chemistry journal.

Perhaps his expertise in chemistry is not relevant here.

Even if it is relevant here--just because he is CAPABLE of doing rigorous research does not mean that is what he did in this case. Again, if it had been credible research it would have been submitted to a credible journal.

I would note that one of his co-authors, Steve Jones, was essentially suspended from his university for failing to conduct himself in an appropriately rigorous fashion, academically.

 

[danmand]

That was the point I was making, smart competent people can be wrong - happens all the time.

At the risk of speaking for someone and fuji, I think what they're saying is that if a competent scientist doesn't expose his work to credible peer review it's not (yet) worth considering. That peer review process is what validates the work of smart competent people, because as we've just discussed, they can be wrong.

I don't want to argue too much with you, because as I have repeatedly stated,
the chemistry will be confirmed or refuted by other scientists, not by you and I.

The chemistry was peer-reviewed.

The point I was making, is that competent scientists can as easily as you and I
(PS: I am one myself) be wrong when it comes to political or religious matters,
i.e. matters of belief, and they can be fooled by evil people as easily as you and I.

But they are seldom wrong when it comes to fundamental scientific skills, like
chemistry. If your x-brother in law was unable to identify a compound, he would
be fired, as would Niels Harrit.

I realize that I am the only one here that actually read Niels Harrit's article. The
chemistry is straightforward, and if Niels Harrit says he found nano-thermite in the
sample, there is overwhelming probability that there is nano-thermite in the sample.

How the nano-thermite got into the sample and what that means, is a totally different matter.

 

[fuji]

But they are seldom wrong when it comes to fundamental scientific skills

Untrue. That is why journals are peer reviewed. They are OFTEN wrong. Not infrequently because of personal bias.

he would be fired, as would Niels Harrit.

Or co-author Steve Jones? OH WAIT, he *was* fired for lack of rigour.

 

[landscaper]

I don't want to argue too much with you, because as I have repeatedly stated,
the chemistry will be confirmed or refuted by other scientists, not by you and I.

The chemistry was peer-reviewed.

The point I was making, is that competent scientists can as easily as you and I
(PS: I am one myself) be wrong when it comes to political or religious matters,
i.e. matters of belief, and they can be fooled by evil people as easily as you and I.

But they are seldom wrong when it comes to fundamental scientific skills, like
chemistry. If your x-brother in law was unable to identify a compound, he would
be fired, as would Niels Harrit.

I realize that I am the only one here that actually read Niels Harrit's article. The
chemistry is straightforward, and if Niels Harrit says he found nano-thermite in the
sample, there is overwhelming probability that there is nano-thermite in the sample.

How the nano-thermite got into the sample and what that means, is a totally different matter.

The problem is if there was nanothermite in the debris he tested how did it get their, was it a result of teh fire combining the componants into a resultant compound he identified, or was it the result of the conspiracy?

That he identified the compounds in the the debris is a question that is up to the referees who audited his paper. It is at this point problems show up.

There is some question about the publications bona fidies,

The referees are anonymus, normal course of events in refereeing a paper for publication, however in this case given the background of the authour( dfisagrees with the official explanation of the collapse) as well as the controversy of the subject matter they should have been identified in order to examine their C.V.'s. Not a normal thing to do but in this case arguably needed.

At this point I have difficulty accepting the paper at face value, either redue the testing if possible with auditing or reveal the referees in order to stop the questions.