1. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    In the retraction of Herndon's previous paper, the Editor, Dr. Paul Tchounwou, stated this as one of the reasons for the retraction:



    As Editor of Frontiers, Dr. Judi Krzyzanowski should have recognized that she was allowing the same fallacy to re-occur under her tenure. Either she didn't care or didn't make an attempt to look into the retraction of Herndon's previous publication. In either case, she failed in her position as editor to produce sound science.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  2. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    • Like Like x 6
  3. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    This is a chart from the latest paper comparing rainwater samples to laboratory samples of leachate from coal fly ash:

    [​IMG]

    Take a note of the scale at the bottom, and then look at, for example, the aluminium to barium ration at the top. The variability is enormous. His "internet readings" (black dots) vary between a ratio of 1 and a ratio of over 100. And the "EU lab range" for coal fly ash leachate ranges between just over 0.001 and almost 1,000. That's almost six orders of magnitude: basically any slightly dusty water sample anywhere on earth is likely to fit into that range!
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
  4. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

  7. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Here's the statement from Frontiers:
    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00155/full
     
    • Like Like x 9
  8. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    To clarify what is happening, Frontiers abides by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
    guidelines regarding their publications and how allegations such as this are handled.

    Here is a link to the downloadable guidelines:
    http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

    The point at which an "expression of concern" is issued, the process after such and expression is made, and the reason for such a statement is detailed in the process for retraction:
    http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction guidelines_0.pdf
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  9. Critical Thinker

    Critical Thinker Senior Member

    And Retraction Watch is also keeping tabs on Herndon's attempt to re-publish his previously retracted work.



     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I just posted this comment for the Herndon paper. I referred to my correspondence here previously:


    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139/full



     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    The editors were quick, the paper has been retracted:
    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00156/full
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. M Bornong

    M Bornong Senior Member

    • Informative Informative x 2
  14. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    I must say though that the retraction note is unsatisfactory. It should have explicitly pointed out the problems with the paper, not just say "the complaints were valid" when those complaints are unspecified.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    At least some of the problems are pointed out in the comment section - which could be appended with more issues.
     
  16. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Herndon has posted his correspondence with the editors:
    http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

    It appears one of the reviewers had issues the paper:

    from: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtg.pdf

    On the other hand, Judi Krzyzanowski claims both reviewers accepted the paper but there was a 3rd reviewer who removed themselves. She does not seem to agree with the retraction. (http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtc.pdf)

    Both Herndon and Krzyzanowski complain that they were not presented with the actual complaints. This is somewhat justified, but the flaws of the paper are actually so basic that anyone with any familiarity with the scientific method should immediately see them.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Herndon expects the conspiracy to be taken as a given(as it were) and implies [states] that the reviewers were part of the conspiracy. How convenient.

    "When the editor asked the complainer permission to publish the complaint, that individual backed off."

    PS: Do we know who that was and whether they really "backed off"? I'll check Herndon's link.

    PPS: That complainant's name seems to have been redacted.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2016
  18. MikeG

    MikeG Active Member

    This part of Krzyzanowski's letter struck me as important:



    It seems to me that the "open" process Krzyzanowski advocates is simply a mandate to publish without adequate peer review.

    I can understand the principle of an "open and transparent science or editorial process," but it shouldn't be a blank check for poor reasoning and evidence.
     
  19. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    He is meta-known to us.
     
  20. Critical Thinker

    Critical Thinker Senior Member

    It seems that the publisher did not indicate that the paper has been retracted on the original paper, but instead they left the original (retracted article) up without any indication of the retraction and posted separately that the article was retracted. It is puzzling that they would leave the original (retracted) article up without any indication of the retraction (other than in the sidebar that is not readily apparent unless one is looking for it), which, as we know, will continue to be cited by the chemtrail conspiracy crowd as scientific 'proof' that there is irrefutable evidence that 'they are poisoning us' or whatever the spin of the day is. Capture.JPG
     
  21. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Frontiers says the retraction process is still in progress. As soon as it gets completed, the article text will be removed.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
  22. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

  23. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    ... and I see Dan Pelletier has chimed in at the comment section which is still accessible.
     
  24. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

  25. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    The comments are there, but the comment section is loaded separately by some Javascript. Maybe your browser doesn't support it or Javascript is turned off.
     
  26. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    That's my assumption.
     
  27. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    The PDF version now has a big "retracted" stamp over the text:
    upload_2016-7-22_18-28-22.
     
    • Like Like x 9
  28. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Herndon continues to complain about the retraction by writing letters to officials at the University of Maryland where the editor signing the retraction is employed. First he wrote a letter to the dean, and now to the provost:
    http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

    From his latest letter:


    He seems to think that the way to get his bad science accepted is by using force and threats.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  29. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    By doing this, Herndon paints himself into a corner where he digs a very deep hole. The more he does it, the wider his paranoid conspiracy grows, with ever more people being involved. That will result in what some of the believers calls "critical mass", but not a mass who believes what he says, a mass that considers the belief even more in the realm of crackpottery.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. MikeG

    MikeG Active Member

    Wow. "Fired for cause" within 48 hours and a "narrow window of time" before the matter escalates.

    And he expects the school to just roll over?

    Best case, they ignore him. Worst case, they pick up the phone and call the university attorneys to deal with him.

    Wow.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  31. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I see that the Provost's office passed the letter down to a subordinate which Herndon took as a slap in the face.

    http://nuclearplanet.com/rtp2.pdf

    However, one thing I only now realized is that in Herndon's original letter to the provost, he completely neglected to mention anything at all about his 2015 IJERPH paper which was retracted. I take that as an attempt to persuade by neglecting to tell the complete story. It is unethical for a scientist to submit information when he has been made aware that it is false, even if he doesn't agree with those reasons.

    Additionally, today I was thinking about what a great opportunity which has been lost. Because Herndon has hidden the real reasons for why his papers have and will continue to be rejected/retracted, and because those same reasons have not been transmitted to the public at large. I'm sure that many chemtrail believers wouldn't pay attention, care or understand, but if the Herndon affair had been a 'closed loop' in which the coal ash hypothesis were shown false or even shown lacking at least one rabbit hole might have been plugged up.

    You may not realize but many studies which don't agree with a hypothesis never get published, it happens all the time.
    By doing so, they don't enter the literature at all and later scientists who therefore don't know repeat the experiment.
    This case is actually worse because an experiment was conducted improperly and subsequently retracted yet even that should have yielded something if only Herndon would stop the paranoid recalcitrance.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  32. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    The Univ. of Maryland's provost replied to Herndon's letter:
    http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtq.pdf

    Herndon's long reply:
    http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtr.pdf

    etc. etc.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  33. cmnit

    cmnit Member

    The self-appointed "maverick" Herndon took the liberty of removing TWICE from his Wikipedia entry a paragraph, edited by yours truly, quoting a recent experimental neutrino study (including Italian physicists). This peer-reviewed paper falsifies (per Popper) Herndon's "georeactor" theory. I'm sick and tired of this "maverick".
     
    • Like Like x 3