One of the subjects that comes up in the debate on 9/11 is the issue of Peer Review. The reason it is a focus of attention with respect to the 9/11 attacks, and those who present Conspiracy Theories on the matter, is its use in 9/11 truth articles to present a false sense of legitimacy to the arguments being made by the CTist. Not false in the sense that "Peer Review" does not add such an air of enhanced worth to articles given such a stamp of approval, but false in that in most cases, the "Peer Review" is either outright bogus, misleading, or deceptive.
Here is a definition of "Peer Review",
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. Even refereed journals, however, can contain errors.
So what about an example of "peer review" for 9/11 truth?
Well the "journal" that seems to be at the center of this debate, is the alleged "Peer Reviewed" Online Journal, "Journal of 9/11 Studies".http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html
Here is the description given for the journal on its home page"
...The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online. Our mission is to provide evidence-based, peer-reviewed research that furthers the cause of truth and justice...
Now at first, one might think...
"Well ok, it is not claiming to be anything more that a journal concerning 9/11 research. "
On the surface, that is indeed how it would appear. In fact, most of the advisory Editorial Board are made up of other 9/11 researchers, so it seems the "peer review" aspect of this would be ok, however, lets take a closer look.
The credentials of the Editors and Advisory Board, are as follows...Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Physicist (BYU) and ArchaeometristKevin Ryan
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health LaboratoriesFrank Carmen Ph.D.
LawyerMarcus Ford Ph.D.
Professor of HumanitiesDerrick Grimmer Ph.D.
PhysicistRichard McGinn Ph.D.
Professor of LinguisticsKimberly Moore
No credentials foundRobert Moore
Professor of EconomicsJoseph Phelps MS CE PE
Civil Engineer(ret)Diane Ralph Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Social WorkLon Waters Ph.D.
So we have 3 physicists, 1 Engineer, 1 Mathematics Prof, A Social Work Prof, 2 Lawyers, a Humanities Prof, an Economics Prof, A linguistics Prof, and a couple of others with no definitive credentials given (academically).
Seems to me that if this is the group from which selection is made to perform "Peer Review" (and I am not sure of this, as the Journal NEVER lists anywhere who is on their Peer Review committee/board, or how it is selected), then it is seriously lacking in several areas of relevant science. There is no chemistry member, only one civil/structural engineering member. There is no demolitions expert. There is no aviation expert. How do we know that their single engineer is qualified to "Peer Review" articles concerning building structure and engineering?
Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps they have a separate list of "Peer Reviewers" which they go to, and choose from based on the nature of the article submitted. If this is the case, I guess we will have to take the word of the editors that this is the case (if they ever indicate this is how it is done), as they list or describe NOWHERE, any policy or procedure concerning their "Peer Review Process".
They are academics, no doubt, and so they are more than qualified to "Peer Review" articles of GENERAL ACADEMICS. However, I fail to see how the above panel/committee is anywhere close to "Peer Review" articles on Structural Engineering, Chemistry, Demolitions, Aeronautics, Aviation, Computer Imaging, and a number of other relevant scientific fields.
Lets not pussyfoot with language here though. The fact is that this is a Conspiracy Theory based Journal, where the editors and board members are known 9/11 truth Conspiracy Theorists. There is NO NEUTRALITY on this board. Now if they would come clean with this, be upfront about what kind of journal it is, and what kind of "Peer Review" they are doing, then fine, but the idea that they are using the "Peer Review" label to somehow legitimize the pseudo-science of their movement is...well, no surprise, misleading and perhaps even false.
So I ask that for the sake of fairness and transparency, that the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" publish on their site, clear and defined procedures and policies on the selection of their "Peer Review" board or members, and what is involved in said review.
Ask yourself this question. If this journal is full of excellent "Peer Reviewed" articles concerning various scientific elements of the 9/11 attacks, then why has not one of the articles been published in any well established scientific journal?