"Last time i saw my father on TV, he looked like my father...but sometimes...something very strange...makes you feel difficult to believe this is the same person as your father. ... Maybe they made a copy of my father and say he says this or he says that"
so i wonder which 4 phonies were put forward to review this paper? not that it really matters, considering it doesn't actually say anything anyway. i cant believe they waitied 7 years to write that pathetic excuse for a paper, and then submitted it to a medical journal
We are still waiting for the official story of the WTC 7 collapse from the same liars that brought you the official story of the WTC 1 and 2.
Phonies? Not likely.
Background information about Bentham Science Publications
Bentham Science Publishers have gained a longstanding international reputation for their excellent standards and top quality science publications. Many journals published by Bentham Science Publishers have received high impact factors in their respective fields. For the current list of publications, please visit www.bentham.org. Seven Nobel Laureates have endorsed a number of Bentham Science's journals; please read their quotes at www.bentham.org/nobel.htm
The publishers are now undertaking a new publication venture by launching a number of Open Access journals in 2007, devoted to various disciplines in the fields of science and technology.
Open Access Journals are freely accessible via the Internet for immediate worldwide, open access to the full text of articles serving the best interests of the scientific community. All interested readers can read, download, and/or print open access articles at no cost! There is no subscription fee for Open Access journals. The modest open access publication costs are usually covered by the author's institution or research funds. Moreover, authors who publish in our Open Access journals retain the copyright of their article. Open Access journals are no different from traditional subscription-based journals; they undergo the same peer-review and quality control as any other scholarly journal.
The journals aim to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and making them freely available to researchers worldwide. All published articles will be deposited immediately upon publication in at least one widely and internationally recognized open access repository...
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
So can you guys actually prove anything wrong within the peer reviewed paper or are you just going to continue blowing hot air?
the point being that the article doesn't actually say anything worth noting. this isn't a peer review of an analysis of the collapses. there is no hypothesis. merely a few unrelated issues that the authors feel are important. the fact that they're STILL trotting out building 7 "not hit by a plane" shows exactly what kind of game they are playing.
bring me a paper that actually proposes a theory of controlled demolition. characterising this piece of as a peer-reviewed analysis that supports the controlled demolition hypothesis is plain dishonesty.
oh, and as far as osama's son goes, he hasn't seen him since 2001. are the CIA also making "copies" of all the other ranking members of al qaida? coz osama is in videos with many of the likely suspects.
pkcRAISTLIN
oh, and here's the other fun part of this reputable journal
quote:
PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:
Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is $600.
Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is $800.
Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is $600.
Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is $900.
Once the paper is accepted for publication, the author will receive by email an electronic invoice. The fee form is also available on the Web site at www.bentham.org/open/feeform Submissions from the Editorial Board Members of the journals will receive a special discount of 50% on the total publication fee. Submissions by authors from developing countries will receive a discount of 30% on the total publication fee charge.
so basically its a vanity publication. ha. i honestly can't believe they even bothered. reading those 14 points, and they're just so...toothless. i can't imagine why you're pleased culorut. did you actually read the paper?
which points in particular do you think have advanced the troofer cause? and which parts do you see as particularly scientific?
culorut
quote:
so basically its a vanity publication. ha. i honestly can't believe they even bothered. reading those 14 points, and they're just so...toothless. i can't imagine why you're pleased culorut. did you actually read the paper?
I think you are upset because all you had left in your argument was that there was no peer reviewed paper.
Sorry for destroying the last thing you where grasping on. You should lay off the JREF/Demo Underground forums and learn to speak for yourself for once.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
I think you are upset because all you had left in your argument was that there was no peer reviewed paper.
Sorry for destroying the last thing you where grasping on. You should lay off the JREF/Demo Underground forums and learn to speak for yourself for once.
which points in particular do you think have advanced the troofer cause? and which parts do you see as particularly scientific?
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
And yes publication fees are very normal.
No, paying for publication is NOT the usual thing. It’s a little more common amongst open source journals but the open source journals aren't exactly the crème de la crème of scientific review now are they?
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
I think you are upset because all you had left in your argument was that there was no peer reviewed paper.
You STILL don't understand do you?
1) Firstly, it’s a "letter" not a "paper". You don't write letters to scientific journals. No really, you don't. the fact that they have done so just illustrates the desperation of the movement, nothing more.
2) they wrote a letter claiming "peer review" to an online journal, that asks you to pay to be published, where you can choose your peer reviewers,
3) they haven't provided a single hypothesis or any scientific method, and
4) the manner and tone in which they have written it is unprofessional and unscientific.
You can't call something "peer reviewed" if there was no science to review. This is purely a stunt so that the ignorant truthers feel they have their peer reviewed scientific vindication. Interesting to note you fell for it with little or no thought on your part. Again, im not that surprised because thus far you have shown exactly zero knowledge of how academia works.
Writing an open letter to NIST doesn't count im afraid. Especially an open letter that is watered down so far to be basically meaningless. I mean honestly, are you happy with what they have provided? because I can't imagine why you would be.
I'll leave it now with words from someone that actually does know how to get published in reputable scientific journals.
quote:
It's pathetic because Dr. Jones has been telling everyone about his "peer-reviewed" journal, and all the great papers in it, for years.
Apparently that didn't exactly set the world on fire. So, he tries to publish for real. That's fine.
However, instead of publishing for real, he publishes in somebody else's sham journal. This gains him no credibility. The only change is, instead of trying to con other people, he falls for exactly the same con run by someone else... and even pays for the privilege.
That's pretty sad.
….
The irony is that, what little content there is in the whitepaper is basically correct -- stale, uninteresting, and already beat to death, but nonetheless correct. What's wrong with this paper is that it isn't science. It's a bunch of guys publishing errata and their own unsupported opinions in challenge to another, much more rigorous publication.
It's not a science paper. Its inclusion in this Journal is completely unwarranted.
Had Dr. Jones actually done some science, that would be different. He could motivate an experiment based on NIST, do the experiment, publish results, and contrast his findings to NIST. That's perfectly acceptable. Of course, if he does that, then he has to follow rigorous procedures of experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing, things he's failed to do in the past. But if he does a good experiment, then he should publish it.
This paper doesn't have anything new in it. There's not a repeatable conclusion in it anywhere. It also, incidentally, does not support any conspiracy theory, so I fail to see its utility to the Truth Movement except for the sheer PR value.
and some more criticism for this backyard journal from pakistan
quote:
Chris Reed, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry (University of California, Riverside), offers the following modest proposal on CHMINF-L:
Colleagues:
In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise.
The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print, offering a career advance by having Editorial Board appointments on one's CV at promotion time, flattering authors with invitations to contribute papers in special issues, etc. All this effectively silences faculty from speaking out, or even caring about, the issues librarians understand so well. It is one of the reasons I am advocating that promotion policies at the University of California specify that appointments to the editorial boards of low quality, overpriced journals should count against promotion. The idea may not be so outrageous in five or ten years time.
I enjoyed hearing about your efforts to contact Bentham Publishers. I, too, have been curious about them. I looked at www.journalprices.com to check on whether Bentham has ISI-listed journals and how they are priced. Journalprices.com lists 14 Bentham journals, 12 are classified as "bad values" in terms of price per article and price per citation, and 2 as "medium values". It appears to me that they are an established publisher that has fallen into "bad hands".
Not only does Bentham spam for authors. They are also spamming for editors.
I have received unsolicited messages from Bentham inviting me to be an editor of the Open Journal of Education as well as the Open Journal of Economics. They also sent me an email inviting me to contribute an article to the Open Journal of Sleep.
I was particularly pleased with the following:
Based on your record of contributions in the field of Education, I would like to invite you to submit to me your CV with current list of publications so that we may consider you as a possible *Editorial Board Member* for the journal.
Since I my record in the field of Education is nil, I feel particularly well-qualified. I have never written a thing in an Education journal. I don't know whether or not to be honored to be invited to contribute to the Open Journal of Sleep.
If you look at the web page of the "Open Journal Advisory Board" http://www.bentham.org/open/toeconsj/EBM.htm you will find something remarkable. There is a list of about 40 economists who are "members of the advisory board," all but one of whose last names start with the letters A-C and only one of whom I have ever heard of. I suppose these are the top of the list of people who responded to the spam letters. What an embarrassing list to have one's name on.
The spam letters say
Bentham Science Publishers have gained a longstanding international reputation for their excellent standards and top quality science publications. Many journals published by Bentham Science Publishers have received high impact factors in their respective fields. For the current list of publications, please visit <http://www.bentham.org/> . Seven Nobel Laureates have endorsed a number of Bentham Science's journals; please read their quotes at <http://www.bentham.org/Nobel.htm>
The quotes from Nobelists endorse a couple of journals in medicine and chemistry published by Bentham.
There is a particularly delightful touch at the bottom of the Open Economics Journal web page: "Indexed by Google, Google Scholar." Just who would be gullible enough not to notice that this means "indexed by nobody other than search engines"? Well, I can show you a list of 40 economists whose names start with the letters A-C.
Cheers, Ted
Dear All,
I would be grateful if anyone could help me. I am interested in
an Open Access publisher called Bentham Science Publishers
(http://www.bentham.org/). I have been contacted by a number of
researchers who say that the company is bombarding them with
invitations to contribute papers to its journals. Apparently
requests by the recipients to remove them from Bentham's mailing
list have little or no effect.
I have tried to make contact with a number of people in the
company including Richard Scott, who is most often the person
whose name appears at the bottom of the invitation letters, and
was until recently listed as the editorial director of the
company on its web site (http://www.bentham.org/Contact.php). I
also copied into my emails Bentham's US contact Richard
Morrissey, and Matthew Honan, who earlier this year was also
described as the company's editorial director
(http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/...ng-program.html).
Likewise I copied in Professor Thomas Salt, since he too has
signed some of the offending emails in his capacity as
Editor-in-Chief of a Bentham journal called Current
Neuropharmacology. Tom Salt appears to be based in the Department
of Visual Science at the Institute of Ophthalmology in London.
Despite all my attempts to make email contact with the company
and its representatives, however, the only response I have
received has come from someone called Mahmood Alam who seems to
be based in Pakistan. He informed me that Richard Scott was too
busy to speak with me, but invited me to email my questions to
him. After I sent some questions through to Mahmood Alam,
however, he failed to answer them.
I have also tried calling the telephone numbers listed on the
Bentham web site, but have only been able to get through to voice
mail messages. The number listed for Richard Morrissey simply
invites callers to email him (the address given is the one that I
have failed to get any response from).
I would be most grateful if anyone who has any knowledge of
Bentham, or any experience of publishing with the company, or
editing any of its journals, or anyone who regularly reads any of
the Bentham journals, could contact me on:
[email][email protected].
My first spam award goes to Bentham Publishers, a "publisher" of "over 200" author-pays open access journals. In the past couple of months I have received no less than 11 emails from Bentham, all mostly identical in text and form, all signed by "Matthew Honan, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers" or "Richard Scott, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers", "inviting" me to submit research articles, reviews and letters to various journals (I got one email per journal!), including "The Open Operational Research Journal", "Open Business Journal", "Open Management Journal", "Open Bioinformatics Journal", "Open Ethics Journal", "Open Analytical Chemistry Journal" and so on - all of them sent to me "because of your eminence in the field" (wow, I didn't know I was so eminent in so many fields! As an aside, the claim that "this is no spam because you are eminent" defies any commonly accepted definition of spam - a message is spam if it is bulk and unsolicited, whether the recipients are all Nobel prize winners or not is irrelevant).
All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any "unsubcribe" links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham.
The bulk email "invites" me to submit articles and to pay for publication - "modest open access publication costs are usually covered by the author's institution or research funds.".
yep! quality journal jones got himself there! :stongue:
culorut
Hilarious, first you complain about no peer reviewed paper and now that there is you cannot handle it and post nit picking bull from disinformation forums like JREF, demo underground and randi.
How about you read the links I provided which shows that paying for the publishing is normal in science publications first, would that help or you cannot read either?
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Hilarious, first you complain about no peer reviewed paper and now that there is you cannot handle it and post nit picking bull from disinformation forums like JREF, demo underground and randi.
"nitpicking" ? lol. only those unfamiliar with research and journals would call these concerns "nitpicking".
your sincere lack of education and experience is quite telling. only someone without a shred of knowledge would confuse this letter with a real, peer-reviewed scientific paper (which is what i and others have been asking for).
but, let's humour you. let's say it really is a paper, and got a really good peer review to boot.
the question remains, what does it have to say that's of any importance at all? it merely highlights points of agreement from another peer-reviewed paper that has already been published (the NIST report).
why is this regurgitation of the NIST report deemed as important to you?
where's the science? its pointless crying "peer review peer review!" if you don't actually have any new science to brag about being reviewed.
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
How about you read the links I provided which shows that paying for the publishing is normal in science publications first, would that help or you cannot read either?
given that i have friends that are published and i have experience in the process of publication, i am merely happy to say that you're wrong, and wouldn't know any better because you lack the necessary education credentials and experience.
so, myself and the rest of the sceptics will continue to wait for a scientific peer-reviewed paper that challenges the NIST report or provides new and compelling science (which is what ive been asking for all along and it should be embarrassing to you that you can't tell the difference).
the funniest part is that i agree with most of the things in this letter(leaving out the unprofessional conduct contained therein) so again i must ask why its important to you considering it doesn't actually say anything?
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
How about you read the links I provided which shows that paying for the publishing is normal in science publications first, would that help or you cannot read either?
Hrmm really? last time i checked, the only journals that did charge a publication fee to teh author were the so called "open source" journals, which might i add have not been openly embraced by the academic community as it is felt that the business aspect of seeking publishing fees may degrade the academic and scientific quality of the reviewing and article standards.
Furthermore, the most reputed civil engineering journals are not open access. the three biggest civil engineering journals in north america are all subscription based and charge no publishing fees to authors, those beening the Structural engineering journal published by the ASCE, the structrual engineering journal published by the CSCE and the NRC-CAN journal of structural mechanics. both CSCE and ASCE are NGO status so you can take your ideas of CIA infiltration right out of the picture.
moreover the "peer reviewed article" is an opinion piece and a letter, not a journal article, hence does not go through the same review process.
culorut
quote:
Hrmm really? last time i checked, the only journals that did charge a publication fee to teh author were the so called "open source" journals, which might i add have not been openly embraced by the academic community as it is felt that the business aspect of seeking publishing fees may degrade the academic and scientific quality of the reviewing and article standards.
Which is exactly what the link explains, that open source journals do usually have a publication fee. No where was anyone hiding that and this is what is called nit picking. I guess you did not bother to read the link I provided either, good one mr. engineer.
As for the advancements made because of this now peer reviewed paper, well it's a little obvious...to shut up the critics and let the truth about what happened on 9/11 continue to spread like wildfire.
