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.
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.
"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.
Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by SPreston
911 was an inside job
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 .
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.
"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.
If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
It was not approved by the editor in chief of this so called peer reviewed journal.
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?
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
"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.
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
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.
Originally posted by CameronFox
You should have stopped right there. The rest of you post is filled with typical truther paranoia, assumptions, and accusations.