Peer Review in Controversial Topics – A Case Study of 9/11

92

Abstract: Beginning with an historical reminiscence, this paper examines the peer review process as experienced by authors currently seeking publication of their research in a highly controversial area. A case study of research into the events of 9/11 (11 September 2001) illustrates some of the problems in peer review arising from undue influences based on financial and political considerations. The paper suggests that ethical failures, rather than flaws in the process itself, are mainly responsible for perceived problems. The way forward lies in improved ethics and a more open process. In addition, editorial review boards and peer review strategies would help to improve the ethics of peer review in general.

Graphic showing peer review process

The paper was written at the invitation of one of the Publications’ editors, and underwent a substantial peer review process. In the invitation, the editor cited the paper “Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study,” by John D. Wyndham, Wayne H. Coste and Michael R. Smith.

This paper was presented at the 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science and Technology.

publications-05-00016

John Wyndham is a founding member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. The following is from his member page.

 


John D. Wyndham

Founding Member

Present or Most Recent Position: Principal Educational Specialist, Digital Equipment Corporation and Compaq Computer Corporation (retired).

Fields: Physics

Degrees and Schools: PhD Physics (Radio Astronomy), MA Physics, BA Physics, Cambridge University, U.K.

Statement on 9/11: “After five years of avoiding the issue, I watched a video of WTC 7 as it fell. After a period of further research, I was shocked and mortified to discover the overwhelming evidence that the official account of 9/11 cannot possibly be true. Since then I have worked to bring this information into public awareness.”

Additional Information: Former Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology, former Assistant Professor of Mathematics, Physics, and Astronomy, Pepperdine University.

Articles: WTC 7 Public Comment
Thoughts on the Chandler / Greening Dialog on WTC1’s Collapse
Open Letter to Jane Harman

Papers: The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact, Version 2, March, 2013. Originally published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, January, 2012.

The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited, March, 2013

Experiments for “The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited.”
EXP3, EXP4, EXP5, EXP6, EXP7, EXP8, EXP9, EXP10, EXP11, EXP12, EXP13, EXP14

The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman, April, 2013

Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study, by John D. Wyndham, Wayne H. Coste and Michael R. Smith, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science and Technology. See also the poster for the paper presentation in Chicago, May 23-24, 2014.

Other Scientific Works Papers and Talks on Radio Astronomy

Website: Scientific Method 9/11

SHARE
Previous articleConspiracy theory and Bull@#*t
Next articleWhy Americans Don’t Understand Terrorism, At All
Staff
911Truth.Org has been continuously published since 2004. We are currently updating the website to make the nearly 3000 articles easier to find, read and share. Thanks for visiting us! While we are updating the site, many articles need to have the original author added to the site database. This is going to take some time so please be patient.