A continuation...
A few days ago the physician in Germany emailed me telling me that he was finally able to locate a Volume 5 of the periodical that the article had supposedly been published in. Apparently, he told me, they were just late in posting it on their website and slow in responding to inquiries.
Naturally I had a look see. Indeed, "Genome, Biology and Evolution" DOES in fact have a Volume 5 and much to my chagrin, the article HAD in fact been published. I then contacted the publisher, Oxford Journals, and asked if the paper had been subject to peer review. The Science Editor informed me that to the best of his knowledge it had been since that particular publication claims to do so with all submissions. However, since he only dealt with the book side of Oxford I should contact the Editor at "Genome, Biology and Evolution."
When he gave me the Editor's name, an America professor at Dussueldorf, it was the same man who had been given Corresponding Copies on all my communications with the German physician. Apparently the physician had been fed the paper by the publication. This is common enough but if a Blogger, or media source, doesn't disclose this I find it a bit disheartening. I'm anal retentive about full disclosure.
I sent the Editor email asking whether or not the paper had been subjected to peer review and if so, could he disclose the level of scrutiny applied to it. In other words, what would disqualify a paper from publication in that journal. He informed me that yes, it was subject to peer review but that those reviewing it do so under anonymity (very common) and that other than a single individual neither he nor the publication had any idea who or what was involved in the peer review of that particular paper.
The individual he was referring to is an unpublished Israeli Jew active- like the author of the paper- in Anti-Zionist political causes and organisations. I contacted the man and asked very generalised questions about the criteria utilised in judging the paper sound and worthy of publication. Predictably he never responded to my inquiry. It is not difficult at all to manipulate the process when you do not engage in blind assignation of peers. You simply opt for academics with well established views that mesh with those of the author.
So, my intuition was indeed wrong. The paper was not a hoax. It was actually published albeit in a manner that lacks integrity and which will be shrugged off by most academics. The problem however isn't its reception and subsequent standing in academia. Rather, the problem is the unwashed masses that educate themselves via Youtube/Wikipedia. AFP, as I mentioned, ran with the stort and slowly but surely it is entering discourse as "proof" that most Jews are not Semitic and therefore not descendants of Judaeans thereby having no moral OR historical justification for "occupying" Arab land. Never mind that there are more than 320 papers offering the opposite conclusion and that virtually all of these are accepted by consensus as defining the situation. All that matters is that 1 paper was published claiming that most Jews are actually Turkic-Mongols. I have to go clean my yurt and water my pony, ciao.
A few days ago the physician in Germany emailed me telling me that he was finally able to locate a Volume 5 of the periodical that the article had supposedly been published in. Apparently, he told me, they were just late in posting it on their website and slow in responding to inquiries.
Naturally I had a look see. Indeed, "Genome, Biology and Evolution" DOES in fact have a Volume 5 and much to my chagrin, the article HAD in fact been published. I then contacted the publisher, Oxford Journals, and asked if the paper had been subject to peer review. The Science Editor informed me that to the best of his knowledge it had been since that particular publication claims to do so with all submissions. However, since he only dealt with the book side of Oxford I should contact the Editor at "Genome, Biology and Evolution."
When he gave me the Editor's name, an America professor at Dussueldorf, it was the same man who had been given Corresponding Copies on all my communications with the German physician. Apparently the physician had been fed the paper by the publication. This is common enough but if a Blogger, or media source, doesn't disclose this I find it a bit disheartening. I'm anal retentive about full disclosure.
I sent the Editor email asking whether or not the paper had been subjected to peer review and if so, could he disclose the level of scrutiny applied to it. In other words, what would disqualify a paper from publication in that journal. He informed me that yes, it was subject to peer review but that those reviewing it do so under anonymity (very common) and that other than a single individual neither he nor the publication had any idea who or what was involved in the peer review of that particular paper.
The individual he was referring to is an unpublished Israeli Jew active- like the author of the paper- in Anti-Zionist political causes and organisations. I contacted the man and asked very generalised questions about the criteria utilised in judging the paper sound and worthy of publication. Predictably he never responded to my inquiry. It is not difficult at all to manipulate the process when you do not engage in blind assignation of peers. You simply opt for academics with well established views that mesh with those of the author.
So, my intuition was indeed wrong. The paper was not a hoax. It was actually published albeit in a manner that lacks integrity and which will be shrugged off by most academics. The problem however isn't its reception and subsequent standing in academia. Rather, the problem is the unwashed masses that educate themselves via Youtube/Wikipedia. AFP, as I mentioned, ran with the stort and slowly but surely it is entering discourse as "proof" that most Jews are not Semitic and therefore not descendants of Judaeans thereby having no moral OR historical justification for "occupying" Arab land. Never mind that there are more than 320 papers offering the opposite conclusion and that virtually all of these are accepted by consensus as defining the situation. All that matters is that 1 paper was published claiming that most Jews are actually Turkic-Mongols. I have to go clean my yurt and water my pony, ciao.