Bentham Journal Accepted a Faked Paper

The "vanity publishing" of Bentham was put to the test recently. For all of you that don't recall, Bentham was the journal that approved and published Steven Jones nano-thermite/thermate paper.

The paper did not make sense at all. Here is just a small part of it:

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].

read entire paper here

They even tried to give it away by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.

Phrenology is the pseudoscience of reading personality traits from the lumps on one’s head.




They were fair about it too. An earlier bogus paper submitted by Davis to another of its publications, The Open Software Engineering Journal, was rejected after peer review.

It's a pretty funny read if anyone is interested and also sheds some light on the inconsistencies of vanity publishing:

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org...

I'm curious if Jones and co. are willing to resubmit their paper to another publisher.



[edit on 11-6-2009 by CameronFox]

You are trying to discredit a professor because of his publisher? In other words you are trying to debunk a work without citing it. Thats not an acceptable method for anyone who wants to be taken seriously.

Not to mention that you claim the pseudoscience by others published under that company. I already have proven the NIST report uses pseudoscience here. So does the 911 commission report. I eagerly await anyone to debunk that.

Originally posted by jprophet420
You are trying to discredit a professor because of his publisher? In other words you are trying to debunk a work without citing it. Thats not an acceptable method for anyone who wants to be taken seriously.

Try to keep up JP. I am discrediting THE PROCESS OF THE PUBLISHER. Can you comprehend that?

That is why I asked if he would be willing to submit it to a NON Vanity Journal. Neither of us are qualified to credit OR discredit his paper. All we can do is state our opinions.

Not to mention that you claim the pseudoscience by others published under that company.

Go back and re-read my post. I did not such thing. I mention that the fake name they made had Phrenology in it. Do you honestly think you tell someones personality by the lumps on their head???

I already have proven the NIST report uses pseudoscience So does the 911 commission report. I eagerly await anyone to debunk that.

Off topic. Now, please stay on topic. If you would like to bump that thread of yours, I will be glad to contribute to it as much as I can.

Thank you.

edit... read wrong thread...

[edit on 11-6-2009 by CameronFox]

You are claiming jprophet420 is off topic? This whole thread is off-topic. This is the 9/11 conspiracy theories forum, not a place to come rant about some publisher publishing something unrelated to 9/11. Since this forum is not about publishers or Phrenology, could you please delete it or move it to an appropriate forum?
Edit: Just because they got by one bad paper, does not mean that Jones' paper was not reviewed. Who knows what the circumstances were that led to this paper being published.

From this one case, we cannot conclude that Bentham Science journals practice no peer review, only that it is inconsistently applied. Earlier this year, I reported on a case in which a nonsensical article submitted to another Bentham Science journal was rejected after going through peer review [1].

[edit on 11-6-2009 by PplVSNWO]

Try to keep up JP. I am discrediting THE PROCESS OF THE PUBLISHER. Can you comprehend that?

You can discredit ANYTHING about the publisher without mentioning the paper in question.

Go back and re-read my post. I did not such thing. I mention that the fake name they made had Phrenology in it. Do you honestly think you tell someones personality by the lumps on their head???

I honestly believe that it has nothing to do with 911. The pseudoscience of bumps on head is off topic and not related to 911. The pseudoscience of the NIST report is mentioned in the paper relevant to the conversation, its mentioned in the paper published by the publisher you are questioning.

I was just showing my work, no need to bump anything.

I wonder if they said every 'truther had a bump on their head' would you buy that?

/humor

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

From this one case, we cannot conclude that Bentham Science journals practice no peer review, only that it is inconsistently applied. Earlier this year, I reported on a case in which a nonsensical article submitted to another Bentham Science journal was rejected after going through peer review [1].

Emphasis mine. Please note my response to JP.

Why will Jones NOT submit his paper to a NON Vanity publisher? Everyone in on it?

Originally posted by jprophet420
You can discredit ANYTHING about the publisher without mentioning the paper in question.

Sure I can. You guys moan all day and night about a "new investigation." Well, it was proven that on at least one occasion, a peer reviewed paper was not even read! Not just a simple mistake was over looked. They entire paper was a sham. You, JP would have rejected it. It didn't even
make sense!!

I honestly believe that it has nothing to do with 911. The pseudoscience of bumps on head is off topic and not related to 911.

I was pointing out how blatantly overlooked this paper was.

The pseudoscience of the NIST report is mentioned in the paper relevant to the conversation, its mentioned in the paper published by the publisher you are questioning.

Fair enough.

I was just showing my work, no need to bump anything.

Not exactly, you were showing Kevin Ryan's work.

Another Member of Bentham Resigns

'Bambang Parmanto, a University of Pittsburgh information scientist, resigned from his editorship at The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ) after reading a story on The Scientist's website yesterday (June 10) that described a hoax paper submission to the journal. Editors at journal claimed to have peer reviewed the article and slated it for publication pending the submission of $800 in "open access fees."

"I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told The Scientist. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Parmanto said that he had never seen the phony manuscript that was accepted by TOISCIJ. "I want to lessen my exposure to the risk of being taken advantage of." ...'

/mat8yc

/mat8yc

Should Jones re-submit his paper to a legitimate journal?

I couldn't really tell if you were being facetious or not and assumed you were. You seem to be asking a serious question so heres my serious answer:

No. From what I understand hes working on a revision, and there are other entities (companies as opposed to individuals) with dust samples from GZ. Either way science will overcome fraud, hopefully justice will be able to overcome politics. As far as Dr Jones is concerned he will always be a pioneer in the field of 911 debunking, and weather his work is peer reviewed now or not will be irrelevant in the end.

[edit on 14-6-2009 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by jprophet420
As far as Dr Jones is concerned he will always be a pioneer in the field of 911 debunking, and weather his work is peer reviewed now or not will be irrelevant in the end.

He is a pioneer?

Not quite. He is a charlatan. He is a snakeoil salesman.

But yes... not matter what, Jones is irrelevant.

reply to post by CameronFox

Not quite. He is a charlatan. He is a snakeoil salesman.

Wow, camron, you are desperate, Professor Jones is not a charlatan, he is a hero a 911-truth hero. Calling people names in a debate is a well know disinfo trait when one is losing his argument. Because someone in here has called you out, you responded by saying you are off topic, I love it. Name-calling is off topic!

But yes... not matter what, Jones is irrelevant.

No, Jones is not irrelevant. This whole post is your opinion you have not disproving anything here.




[edit on 14-6-2009 by impressme]

reply to post by CameronFox


Instead of taking shots at where Dr. Jones et als' paper was published, why don't you offer up some of your expertise as to what is flawed with the paper itself? That way the debate could be about the events and evidence of 9/11, and you you would not be taking up bandwidth on the 9/11 forum with non-relevant items. Maybe you could start by telling us what you know about the actual data Dr. Jones presents, and interpret it for us with the tools of your field of study.

That is the purpose of this forum, right?

[edit on 14-6-2009 by 1SawSomeThings]

reply to post by CameronFox


Yes, brilliant answer. For a minute there I thought you were going to post facts.

reply to post by jprophet420


Let's make it simple:

List the findings of Mr. Jones that have been properly reviewed in a legitimate journal.

Thank you.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

The article is detailed in New Scientist

www.newscientist.com...

I hate it when people quote stuff without including links back to the article. I assume its total nonsense right from the get go.

In Bentham's defense, they had this to say:

Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."

Hard to say one way or the other. I would have liked to see if the paper truly would have been published after payment (and subsequent knowledge of who paid) was issued.

Why did Bentham Open accept the hoax paper?

Text"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not.To be fair to Bentham, however, an earlier bogus paper submitted by Davis to another of its publications, The Open Software Engineering Journal, was rejected after peer review."

The hoax paper was accepted simply to find the out the identity of the author. Therefore Bentham Open is not tarnished nor does this story have anything to do with Stephen Jones and his team's paper. Nor does Open Software Engineering have anything to do with the Open Chemical Journal that published Jones paper after suitable peer review. Remember that the Jone's paper was returned to that team 3 different times requiring months of further research. No one has yet to publish a peer-reviewed rebuttal to that scholarly article.

With regards to the hoaxers themselves:

"Parmanto did add, however, that the perpetrators of the hoax -- Cornell grad student Philip Davis and Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at the New England Journal of Medicine -- were also guilty of some degree of unethical behavior. "This is a process based on trust," he said. "An author should submit something legitimate, and the process on the review side should decide if a paper is worth publishing or not. In this case, the process was broken on both sides."

What do other prominent scientists have to say about Bentham Open Journal:

Prominent Scientists endorse Bentham Open: "Free open access to information is vital to scientific and socio-economic progress." H. W. Kroto (Nobel Laureate)

"Bentham’s open access journals offer a creative avenue towards the goal of rapid publication and dissemination of relevant science results." Richard R. Ernst (Nobel Laureate)

"The advantage of the Open Journal series is that it is just that: open, and accessible to anyone with a PC at no charge I appeal to scholars across the disciplines to consider the Open Journal series as a forum for their work." J.C. Jones (University of Aberdeen, Scotland)

I reiterate the Open Software Engineering have anything to do with the Open Chemical Journal.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by Swing Dangler]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Hard to say one way or the other. I would have liked to see if the paper truly would have been published after payment (and subsequent knowledge of who paid) was issued.

I agree. There is no way to know if they are being honest. The author was asked to remit payment to be published. Who knows if the check would have been cashed or... returned after they found out who it was.

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Let's make it simple:

List the findings of Mr. Jones that have been properly reviewed in a legitimate journal.

Thank you.

Bentham Open is a legitimate journal. Political opinions don't change that fact.

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category." Jih Ru Hwu (National Central University, Taiwan)

I will accept the opinions of experts regarding the legitimacy of Bentham Open as repeated here and in my post above.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Bentham Open is a legitimate journal. Political opinions don't change that fact.

That is your opinion and of a few others.

I will accept the opinions of experts regarding the legitimacy of Bentham Open as repeated here and in my post above.

Even Bambang Parmanto's opinion?

What about Marc Williams opinion?

Marie-Paule Pileni. Does her opinion count?

All three of these editors resigned from the journal since. Marie-Paule did at the end of April, Bambang and Marc just the other day.