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

Abstract

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.

9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline

“…Instead, what prevails is “anti-science,” whereby scientists charged by the U.S. government with investigating 9/11 “started with their conclusions and worked backwards to some ‘leading hypotheses’” (Ryan, 2007, p. 64). The 2008 NIST report on the destruction of WTC 7, for example, published 7 years after the War on Terror began, “has all the earmarks of attempted scientific fraud” (Wyndham, 2017, p. 3). Academics therefore have a scientific as well as a moral responsibility to investigate 9/11.…”

“…Academic silence on 9/11 truth can, accordingly, be attributed to “the disciplining effect of the War on Terror and the state of emergency, which […] is even stronger than McCarthy-era anti-communism” (van der Pijl, 2014, p. 229). The neo-McCarthyite climate of fear and intimidation that descended over academia after 9/11 has “greatly impeded the acceptance and publication of research papers that question or contradict the official account of that event” (Wyndham, 2017, p. 3).…”

“…But when the institutional environment of academia is so hostile to 9/11 truth—for political rather than intellectual reasons—then the paucity of peer-reviewed scientific literature on the events of 9/11 comes as no surprise:As 9/11 research has shown in perhaps magnified form, the formal peer review process can be used as a weapon to bury opposing views and stifle independent research whose natural conclusions are in opposition to established or official narratives and vested interests. The tendency to look down upon or disparage a paper that has not gone through or survived the formal peer review process is widespread but often unwarranted (Wyndham, 2017, p. 6).Indeed, it is certainly true that some extremely important 9/11 research exists in non-peer-reviewed format (see Footnote 5). To the extent that the peer review system has worked to stifle 9/11 truth, as Wyndham alleges, it even stands to reason that some of the most important 9/11 research may not have been peer reviewed.…”

“…As 9/11 research has shown in perhaps magnified form, the formal peer review process can be used as a weapon to bury opposing views and stifle independent research whose natural conclusions are in opposition to established or official narratives and vested interests. The tendency to look down upon or disparage a paper that has not gone through or survived the formal peer review process is widespread but often unwarranted (Wyndham, 2017, p. 6).…”

Peer Review and Churchill

“…As it happens, that's not the only potential peer review problem we feature in the current issue. John Wyndham (no not the famous science fiction author-he's long dead) has written about some of the editing and reviewing issues in obtaining publication of evidence of alternative explanations of how 9/11 occurred [2].…”