Influential scientists have transformed the peer-review system for approving articles and funding projects to a circle of friends, and friends of friends who approve articles and funding to each other with no transparency for accountability to the world.
The following are a few examples of enlightening events regarding how articles and projects with scientific merits are not accepted for publication and funding if the author is not accepted by the circle of friends or friends of friends.
It explains how one author can have 15 to 20 papers accepted at a single conference every year although there is no evidence of scientific merits and advantages, while a single paper with supporting evidence of scientific merits and advantages that are recognized by several senior scientists and by an IEEE open review panel is rejected from publication because powerful scientists impede the acceptance of the author in the circle of friends.
1. One example: After Levin responded to Crosetto’s 4 questions at the IEEE-MIC conference on November 2, 2013, he sat next to Crosetto for a few minutes and thanked him for his questions, telling him that he would help implement the public forum that Crosetto had requested during his email exchange with a group of scientists from September to November for the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference. Levin pointed out George Elfakhri, Chairman of the IEEE Medical imaging Conference for 2014, and invited Crosetto to submit a proposal to him to perform a workshop in November of 2014, and also requested a copy for himself (Levin) as he would support it. It was a fair offer by Levin to recognize Crosetto’s valid points and questions and to accept an open dialogue about them. However, Crosetto tried to contact Levin several times by phone in April and May of 2014, and informed him about the email exchange with Georges Elfakhri as he requested but no support was received from Levin.
Was Levin’s good intention to help Crosetto to get into the circle of friends and friends of friends prevented by some powerful scientist as had occurred in the past or did Levin just take back his promise because he did not want to be accountable in an open workshop to answer additional questions by Crosetto on his 17 papers approved in 2014 which continue to propose the inefficient, high radiation, high cost, 3D position-sensitive detector with the 1x1x1 mm3 crystals, or a question on his 24 papers approved in 2013, 6 approved in 2012, 21 approved in 2011, 18 approved in 2010, 33 approved in 2009, 19 approved in 2008, 15 approved in 2007, 15 approved in 2006, etc.?
Crosetto submitted a proposal for a workshop in 2014 as suggested by Levin, and then spoke via telephone with the Chairman Elfakhri, (email@example.com) on April 24, 2014, and with the Deputy MIC Chairwoman, Katia Parodi (firstname.lastname@example.org), on May 2nd, 2014. They told him the proposal was received on time on May 9th, 2014, and that as soon as a decision was made everyone would be informed. Later Parodi informed Crosetto that the deadline for submissions of proposals for workshops had been extended until June 1st, 2014, and that all authors would be informed by July 1st, 2014, whether their proposals had been accepted or not. On July 12th, 2014, when Crosetto had not received any information, he talked briefly with Parodi who said a decision would be made in the next week or two, but definitely by the end of July, 2014.
To date, September 4th, 2014, authors who proposed workshops have not been able to check online whether their workshops have been accepted or rejected as the website displays the same message since March 2014, “As the list of available workshops will evolve over the next few months, please check back often”, with no additional information on new workshops. In addition to Crosetto’s proposed MIC workshop, Crosetto submitted a proposal to Ingrid Gregor and Adam Bernstein for an NSS related workshop which they had urged Crosetto to submit before May 5th, 2014. They sent a rejection via email one week later, but as of yet, have not responded to Crosetto’s correspondence addressing their rejection. It is hard to understand how, in May of 2014, the IEEE-NSS-MIC Chairmen urged Crosetto to submit proposals for workshops and on September 4th, there are still no announcements for them on the web. In previous years, workshops were announced on the web in the middle of May (see 2013 IEEE, click on Special Purpose Workshops on the left column) to allow time for attendees to submit abstracts to the workshop before June 15th. These abstracts were then reviewed for acceptance/rejection and attendees were notified in time to plan their participation.
1. In September of 2009, after several email exchanges and phone conversations with Ralph James, Associate Director at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Crosetto was invited to give a seminar before scientists from BNL departments of Physics, Medicine and Molecular Imaging, which included Joanna Fowler, who had just been awarded the National Medal of Science. NO ONE could invalidate Crosetto’s claims of higher efficiency and lower cost of his 3D-CBS technology. Ralph James proposed that Crosetto should be part of grant review panels, however, he also mentioned to him that some scientists had strong oppositions when his name was brought up at some meetings among leaders. Several times Crosetto asked Ralph James when he could participate to review panels that he spontaneously, previously proposed , however, apparently some, more powerful scientists were not of the same opinion and again Crosetto’s competence was not valued in the field recognized in writing by many scientists during the past 22 years, but the power to keep out the TRUE TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE for the benefit of humanity that Crosetto advocates from their circle of friends continued to prevail.
2. From May to August of 2008, Uwe Bratzler, the General Chairman of the 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference learned that Crosetto’s papers were rejected in 2002, 2004 and 2007 without a scientific reason and read his official correspondence with the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference of the previous year. Noting the value of Crosetto’s technology and the unfair and non-scientific procedure used the previous year, he encouraged Crosetto to submit papers to his conference promising that if some will be rejected he will ask his reviewers to provide a scientific reason for the rejection, as well as he agreed to conduct from CERN via EVO webinar system a public forum on Crosetto’s 3D-CBS innovative technology for early cancer detection. Crosetto submitted five papers and all have been rejected. Bratzler fought with all his power to find scientific reasons supporting those rejections. However, he was powerless to obtain both and provided a comment to Crosetto that relevant people in the field refused to agree to have a public scientific dialogue on this issue with Crosetto. A clear sign that powerful scientists want the TRUE TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE that Crosetto advocates to be kept away from their circle of friends.
3. On August 15, 2002 Crosetto received an email from Joel Karp, the General Chairman of the 2002 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference stating: “…I contacted Dr. Kinahan [Chairman of 2002 IEEE-MIC conference] and he assured me that your submission was carefully reviewed by the scientific committee, but that it did not meet the requirements for acceptance. After further consideration, he does not feel it is warranted to override the scientific committee’s decision, and I, too, wish to abide by that decision. Therefore, I regret that the decision must stand.” The rejection statement sent on August 6, 2002, was not supported by scientific arguments and stated: “the number of submissions exceeded the time allocated for the scientific sessions, and we were unable to accept all papers.” The title of Crosetto’s paper was: “The 3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) features and its implementation”. Karp acknowledged receiving and reading Crosetto’s book that he sent him in paper copy, providing the blue print for a very high sensitivity PET called 3D-CBS: “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening”. In 2013 Joel Karp presented at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference with Simon Cherry, Terry Jones, Bill Moses and many others who were aware of Crosetto’s innovative 3D-CBS technology a paper titled: “EXPLORER: An Ultra-Sensitive Total Body PET Scanner for Biomedical Research” providing in slide 5 titled: “Not a New Idea!”, Crosetto’s reference to the 3D-CBS very high sensitive device which is ten times less expensive than the EXPLORER. However, Crosetto’s paper was again rejected from being presented at the same conference, while the EXPLORER which confirms Crosetto’s calculations and claims that have been rejected for 14 years by these and other people, has been accepted. Again, Crosetto’s competence in the field, recognized in writing by many scientists during the past 22 years, was not valued, but the power to ignore the TRUE TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE for the benefit of humanity that Crosetto advocates from their circle of friends, continued to prevail.
4. In October of 2001, Chris Parkman from the CERN Information Technology Division, Chairman of the Industrial Exhibition at the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego, California, offered Crosetto a free booth at the exhibition where he could display the proof of concept of his invention in hardware. He kindly offered a booth next to the coffee-bar so that attendees had more of an opportunity to see this important development. In particular, it was hoped that two very influential leaders in the field of medical imaging applications, Bill Moses and Steve DeRenzo, would notice Crosetto’s invention proven in hardware. Many scientists, including some from CERN and Anthony Lavietes, email@example.com the 2014 General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, stopped by Crosetto’s booth and witnessed on the oscilloscope the timing and on the LED the results of clusters found by his 3D-Flow innovative concept proven in hardware, but DeRenzo and Moses who disagreed with Crosetto’s claims, ignored the evidence and continued to ignore the TRUE TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE for the benefit of humanity that Crosetto advocates from their circle of friends. No matter how many true scientists try to support scientific evidence, powerful scientists who transform rigor in science within their circle of friends approving each other’s articles, continues to prevail.
5. In November of 2000, Terry Jones from Hammersmith Hospital in London asked Crosetto for a copy of his book, “400+ Times Improved PET Efficiency for Lower-Dose Radiation, Lower-Cost Cancer Screening” After being asked by Crosetto to write a review of his book, he appointed Steve DeRenzo to review it. DeRenzo wrote a negative review on Crosetto’s claims and calculations stating that in order to improve PET efficiency, crystals should be improved and not the electronics. DeRenzo’s statement and claim was demonstrated to be incorrect by several authors who published articles after the year 2000 showing that better electronics do in fact significantly improve PET efficiency. The list includes Siemens who announced on their website in 2007 that “improvement of the electronics increased the efficiency of their PET by 70%”. It also includes Terry Jones, who was convinced by Crosetto’s claims and calculations to the point that 13 years later, at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference he presents the EXPLORER, similar to the 3D-CBS. Clearly DeRenzo’s negative review and not admitting before witnessing the evidence of Crosetto’s hardware feasibility and functionality of his invention at the Industrial Exhibition section of the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference was a demonstration that the issue is not being addressed as it would be with true scientists like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and all those who admitted to be wrong before the evidence. Instead we are dealing with a deliberate action to keep Crosetto out of the circle of their friends because he is an advocate of transparency in science which may threaten their power. DeRenzo’s adversity to address science in a transparent way, is not limited to his revision of Crosetto’s book in the year 2000 but it goes back to when Crosetto was at the Superconducting Super Collider in 1992 and was engaged in a discussion about scientific issues with DeRenzo and his colleague from Berkley, Bill Moses. Crosetto’s attempts to address scientific issues were neutralized with adverse reactions, only for him to realize that the issue was belonging to their circles of friends.
6. In October of 2000, after Crosetto distributed approximately 200 copies of his book to the leaders in the field participating in the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Lyon, senior IEEE scientist Aaron Brill, realizing that Crosetto’s articles were rejected by anonymous reviewers with no scientific arguments, asked for an open review of Crosetto’s article submitted the year before to the Transaction in Nuclear Science (TNS) journal and appointed Les Rogers, a physics professor and recipient of an award at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MICConference in Lyon. Anonymous reviewers claimed Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention was flawed in spite of it being recognized valuable by a major scientific review held at FERMILab in 1993. It was simulated and later proved feasible and functional in hardware. Crosetto was able to clarify Les Rogers’s misconception regarding his invention, as reported in Ref. [] and in their conspicuous email exchange, beginning with Les Rogers’s view point. Only after Les Rogers expressed his view point and Crosetto explained the difference between his invention and Les Rogers viewpoint, progress was made in understanding Crosetto’s innovations. The TNS Editor appointed additional anonymous reviewers. The majority of all reviewers (including the anonymous ones appointed by the TNS editor) were in favor of publishing Crosetto’s 8-page TNS article [Error! Bookmark not defined.], however, the powerful scientists were able to prevent its publication which demonstrates their power to transform acceptance of articles in a circle of friends which approves each other’s articles and ignores scientific evidence.
7. In September 1998, Crosetto was prevented from presenting his 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture that would have provided full programmability at the level-0 and the level-1 trigger, at the LHC workshop in Snowmass (CO) that he attended at his own expense. Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp told Crosetto that he could not present his work, which was recognized a breakthrough by a major scientific review in 1993, because he did not have funding. However, they are supposed to identify and recommend the most cost-effective approaches for funding. Instead of complying with the role of scientists to implement scientific procedures and let scientists question each other at workshops to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge, Smith and Sharp crushed innovations by not letting them challenge less cost-effective approaches by their circle of friends. Therefore, articles on superior, more cost-effective technologies are rejected and funding is assigned to those who published more articles, although the technology described has less scientific merit. The following is an enlightening description of how the system works.
Every true scientist who cares about integrity in science, who cares to payback the trust they receive from the public and analyses the facts listed below, will realize that a paradigm change needs to take place in defense of science. It is not merely an injustice and unfair to Crosetto, but it is a much greater injustice to the public that is damaged by the oppression of these unscientific actions that Crosetto is trying to prevent in their interest through the implementation of transparency in science. Let’s take for example the events that show Wesley Smith as one of the prominent protagonists of this obstruction to the scientific truth for the advancement in science and for the benefit of mankind.
In 1993 Wesley Smith was the only one who wrote to Crosetto that the High Energy Physics community does not need programmability at Level-1 Trigger and therefore, Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention implementing a cost-effective programmable Object Pattern Recognition Algorithm, in his opinion, was not useful. However, the transparency in science implemented by the SSC Director who requested a major public review of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention at FERMILAb in 1993 and all other leaders from different experiments from the most prestigious Research Centers and Universities, had the different opinion recognizing Crosetto’s invention to be valuable. It is attested in the final report of the FERMILab review panel and in many letters from 1992 to date by many scientists, that Crosetto’s invention would provide great advantages in other fields, specifically in Medical Imaging for a safe, cost-effective early cancer detection.
How was it possible that transparency in science made the most cost-effective approach emerge, and that many leaders in this field also recognized it, and Wesley Smith being one of the most prominent protagonists was able to drag into the ditch over 10,000 scientists, who for over 20 years have been building an instrument with no capability to identify and accurately measure all characteristics of the 100,000 Higgs boson-like particles, to the point that now the Level-1 Trigger and front-end electronics need to be changed?
One would expect that the outcome of a public review at FERMILab about a valuable invention, also supported by many letters from many scientists, would fund that solution and would not support Wesley Smith who had an approach that was wasting money and “driving into the ditch” so many scientists.
Instead, it seems like who you know is more important than what you know. In spite of Wesley Smith’s approach which was proven on many occasions that scientific evidence did not support it as being superior to other approaches, on the contrary, it was driving many people into the ditch, he had a brilliant career as a leader of the Trigger at the SDC collaboration at the Superconducting Super Collider in 1992. After the termination of the SSC by U.S. Congress, he held positions of high responsibility in the Trigger of the CMS experiment at CERN in Geneva and in several other positions of responsibility in research for over two decades.
[] Communications with IEEE senior reviewer Les Rogers, who was referring to the classical pipelining and to other architectures, having difficulties to understand my invention. Only after he expressed his view point and I pointed out the difference between my invention and his viewpoint progress was made in understanding my innovations. http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/825.pdf http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/826.pdf http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/827.pdf http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/828.pdf http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/829.pdf http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/830.pdf http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/831.pdf http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/832.pdf http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/833.pdf http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/834.pdf
This post is also available in: Italian