[ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health

[Roger Helbig]

From: "David Ozonoff" <dozonoff at bu.edu>
To: "Roger Helbig" <rhelbig at california.com>
Cc: "Grandjean Philippe" <PGrandjean at health.sdu.dk>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health 


Dear Mr. Helbig

Our peer review process is described on the web page. It is  
essentially identical to those of other peer review journals except  
that it is "open," that is, not anonymous. You can see the reviews by  
clicking on "Pre-publication history" on the website.

We require any disclosure of conflicts of interest.  If you have  
technical comments, we would consider publishing them in the form of  
a Letter.

Sincerely yours

dave ozonoff


On Sep 10, 2005, at 5:57 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:

> Professor Ozonoff,
>
> I would like to know how your publication performs peer review of  
> manuscripts to assure the public that research articles represent  
> sound science and are not politically biased.  In particular, I am  
> concerned with the research article "Teratogenicity of depleted  
> uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective"  
> which appears at http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/ 
> 1476-069X-4-17.pdf .
>
> The principal researcher Rita Hindin openly admits to being  
> politically motivated to enter into this literature survey research  
> on page 47 of the article
>
> "Sunny Miller, executive director of Traprock Peace Center of  
> Deerfield, MA hosted a presentation by Damacio Lopez (director of  
> IDUST, International Depleted Uranium Study Team)
> http://www.idust.net/#HISTORY
>  which Rita Hindin attended and that eventually led to the writing  
> of this paper.  Our appreciation.  Thanks to Dan Bishop (of IDUST)  
> and Tom Fasy (Mt. Sinai Medical Center, NYC) for their assistance  
> early on explicating DU toxicology, and to the
> Uranium Weapons Study Team (of Traprock Peace Center) for  
> thoughtful conversations and support to explore leads and deepen  
> understanding of DU.  Thanks to the conveners and attendees of the  
> World Uranium Weapons Conference Hamburg Germany, October 16 - 19,  
> 2003.  Of greatest importance, Rita's attendance afforded her the  
> opportunity to
> share thoughtful conversation with and learn from Iraqi  
> researchers, Drs. Jennan Hassan, Jawad Al-Ali and Souad Al-Azzawi.   
> We offer deep thanks, appreciation and respect for the information  
> they shared, and for work that they and their colleagues are  
> doing.  We deeply appreciate the reporters and activists who have  
> managed, against great odds, to report bits of information out of  
> Iraq and who, as responsible, thoughtful citizens of many  
> countries, assert their dignity and demand appropriate response to  
> the challenges posed by DU aerosols.  Rita also had the opportunity  
> to speak with and learn from Drs. Chris Busby and Michel Fernex at  
> the Hamburg conference. Their contributions to this paper stem from  
> their long-term, on-going, related research as well as, more  
> particularly, to the helpful and thoughtful comments they gave as  
> peer reviewers of the submitted manuscript.  Thanks to Tova Neugut  
> for insightful conversations and for reading many early drafts of  
> the manuscript.  Jaime DeLemos helped us figure out the chemistry of
> depleted uranium."
>
> and the materials researched clearly show a bias against the use of  
> depleted uranium munitions and do not show an objective approach to  
> science.
>
> I look forward to your detailed description of the peer review  
> process as it applied to this specific research article.  When you  
> determine that the entire research was biased and not objective,  
> please, remove this publication from your website and indicate why  
> it has been removed for failing to meet objective scientific  
> standards.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Roger Helbig
>