Originally posted by gummybear
I realize that but the site contains links to sources, written and video statements, official documents..etc. So in many cases the site itself can be a vehicle for further information and a starting point. If it was a site that only existed for the sole purpose of commentary, I would agree that it would not be credible.
I think you've been told this at least a ten times now: be specific.What official documents? Where exactly are the sources?
You don't even need to summarize it here, just point us to it. Where on this god-forsaken website are the substantiated, peer-reviewed documents which verify your claim? In which academic journal are these articles?
Specify. Otherwise, please stop wasting your, and what is worse, our time.
pkcRAISTLIN
Here’s something to lol about fellas. The crackpot “experts” such as Gage & Jones etc have been unable to produce work suitable for existing scientific journals. So what did they do? They created their own! Peer reviewed by each other of course, hahaha. But the hilarious part is the one and only journal that published their findings, was a vanity journal that charged jones $600 in order to get published. It gets better too- that same journal published a paper, WRITTEN BY A BOT!!! :haha:
quote:
The editor-in-chief of an academic journal has resigned after his publication accepted a hoax article.
The Open Information Science Journal failed to spot that the incomprehensible computer-generated paper was a fake. This was despite heavy hints from its authors, who claimed they were from the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology – which forms the acronym Crap.
The journal, which claims to subject every paper to the scrutiny of other academics, so-called "peer review", accepted the paper.
Philip Davis, a graduate student at Cornell University in New York, who was behind the hoax, said he wanted to test the editorial standards of the journal's publisher, Bentham Science Publishers.
Davis had received unsolicited emails from Bentham asking him to submit papers to some of its 200+ journals that cover a wide range of subject matter from neuroscience to engineering.
If their papers are accepted, academics pay a fee in return for Bentham publishing the papers online. They can then be viewed by other academics for free.
Davis, with the help of Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at the New England Journal of Medicine, created the hoax computer science paper. The pair submitted their paper, Deconstructing Access Points, under false names. Four months later, they were told it had been accepted and the fee to have it published was $800 (almost £500).
Davis then withdrew the paper and revealed it as a hoax. Bambang Parmanto has since stepped down as editor-in-chief of the Open Information Science Journal. Parmanto told New Scientist that he never saw the paper.
Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, told New Scientist: "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." Davis told the magazine that he had not been directly contacted.
The hoax has triggered a debate about "open access" journals, some of which charge academics fees to publish their papers and allow readers access to research without subscription. Anderson said: "It's almost an inevitability that you might have several publishers tempted to take advantage of this relatively easy money."
Alex Williamson, a former publishing director of the British Medical Journal – partly open access and partly run on subscriptions – said: "There is a whole range in the quality of journals. Some that are open access are extremely good. There are a lot of awful ones, and these are probably more likely to be open access journals. Any idiot can start a journal on the web."
An open access journal has agreed to publish a nonsensical article written by a computer program, claiming that the manuscript was peer reviewed and requesting that the "authors" pay $800 in "open access fees."
Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell University, and Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at the New England Journal of Medicine, submitted the fake manuscript to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ) at the end of January.
Davis generated the paper, which was titled "Deconstructing Access Points," using a computer program -- called SCIgen -- created at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He and Anderson signed the work using pseudonyms (David Phillips and Andrew Kent). The two listed the "Center for Research in Applied Phrenology" (CRAP) as their home institution on the paper, which featured fictitious tables, figures and references.
"I wanted to really see whether this article would be peer reviewed," said Davis. "[Our paper] has the look of an article, but it makes no sense."
Davis told The Scientist that he got the idea for this "little experiment" after receiving scores of spam emails soliciting article submissions and invitations to serve on editorial boards of open access journals from Bentham Science Publishers, TOISCIJ's publisher. According to its website, Bentham publishes "200 plus open access journals" that cover disciplines from bioinformatics and pharmacology to engineering and neuroscience. "One of the things that made Bentham catch our eye," Anderson said, "was that they were so aggressively soliciting manuscripts."
The two wrote about the incident today on the Scholarly Kitchen, the Society for Scholarly Publishing blog that they run.
Davis said that last week the journal notified him that it had accepted the manuscript, which contained absolutely meaningless statements typified by the first few lines of its introduction: "Compact symmetries and compilers have garnered tremendous interest from both futurists and biologists in the last several years. The flaw of this type of solution, however, is that DHTs can be made empathic, large-scale, and extensible. Along these same lines, the drawback of this type of approach, however, is that active networks and SMPs can agree to fix this riddle."
He received an email from Ms. Sana Mokarram, assistant manager of publication at Bentham, that the manuscript "has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ." But Davis said that he received no reviewer comments in reference to the sham manuscript.
"The publisher said that it went through peer review," Davis said. "That looks very suspect. [Bentham says] that they're a scientific publication that does peer review, but at least in one case they did not do peer review, and they said that they did."
I called Richard Morrissy, who's listed as the US contact for Bentham Science Publishers on the company's website, but he declined to answer my questions and instead directed me to his supervisor, Matthew Honan, who works in Bentham's France office. Honan does not have a phone number, according to Morrissy, and he did not reply to an email (which was CC'ed to Bentham's marketing team in Pakistan) by the time this article was posted.
Earlier this year, Davis submitted another fake SCIgen-generated manuscript to a Bentham journal, The Open Software Engineering Journal, and it was rejected after what appeared to be an actual peer review process.
Mokarram's acceptance email for the TOISCIJ article had a fee form attached, asking Davis to submit an $800 payment to a post office box in the SAIF Zone, a tax-free complex in the United Arab Emirates. Davis wrote back and retracted the manuscript. "We have discovered several errors in the manuscript which question both the validity of the study and the results," he wrote in an email to Mokarram.
Davis said that he considered scraping together the $800 to see if Bentham would actually publish the fake paper, but considered that taking the hoax further would be "unethical."
"I think that the point has been made," he said. "And, I mean, it's $800, and I'm a graduate student."
All joking aside, Davis and Andrews say the episode points out potentially serious flaws in the open-access, author-pay model being adopted by an increasing number of publishers. "What happens to be going on is that some publishers see this as a lucrative opportunity," Davis said. "This open access environment may set up the condition under which publishers could use the good will of academics and their institutions for profit motives."
Open access journals generally charge authors fees to publish research papers. For example, BioMed Central journals charge up to $2265 in "article processing fees," and publishing in the PloS family of journals costs authors between $1300 - $2850. With institutional libraries, including Cornell's, and granting institutions, such as the Wellcome Trust and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, offering to pay open access publication fees for faculty authors and grantees, the potential for abuse may be increasing. "It's almost an inevitability that you might have several publishers tempted to take advantage of this relatively easy money," said Anderson.
But open access advocate Peter Suber from Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, told The Scientist that the problem is not the open access business model, per se. "If it were intrinsically suspect, we would have to level that criticism at a much wider swath of subscription journals," many of which also charge page fees when manuscripts are accepted for publication, Suber said.
As for Bentham, Suber noted that "many questions about their business" have been circulating for more than a year. "There's a whole range of quality in open access journals," Suber said, "in the same way that there is a whole range of quality in subscription journals."
Originally posted by Abercrombie
I wish teh c0r was here for the G20 thread.
How about you just go to the COR instead? I mean 99% of the time you don’t seem to be serious or engaged in any sort of way. All you do is make stupid jokes and post retarded pictures.
exraver
quote:
I was in primary school, getting a proper Western education
Ha ha, you just dug your own grave.
Astounding results of proper Western education:
Is America a country?
Name a country what begins with U
Your proper Western education kinda of sucks, don't you think?
thesauce23
quote:
Originally posted by exraver
Ha ha, you just dug your own grave.
Astounding results of proper Western education:
I know you are angry and i'mma let you finish but i think he's Aussie mate:stongue:
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by exraver
Ha ha, you just dug your own grave.
Astounding results of proper Western education:
Is America a country?
Name a country what begins with U
Your proper Western education kinda of sucks, don't you think?
:haha:
You might have a (poor) point were I American you stupid . Please pay close attention to the nationality of the interviewer in the second video too. *waits for penny to drop*
Silky Johnson
quote:
Originally posted by exraver
You realize that "Western" doesn't refer specifically to North America, right?
exraver
quote:
I know you are angry and i'mma let you finish but i think he's Aussie mate:stongue:
Nvrmnd proper spelling, Australia doesn't belong to western civilization anymore?
Thanks a lot for heads up, now poor russian sap learned another piece of history tonight.
thesauce23
quote:
Originally posted by exraver
Nvrmnd proper spelling, Australia doesn't belong to western civilization anymore?
Thanks a lot for heads up, now poor russian sap learned another piece of history tonight.
well your videos are about Americans yet he is Aussie. can you see why i would make my comment? the videos don't really affect him , maybe subtly but not enough to make a point.. Westerners include Germans too, and I wouldn't question their education. u see what i mean?
but lets get back to
P(BIA)= P(A^B)/P(A) :conf: :gsmile:
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by exraver
Ha ha, you just dug your own grave.
Astounding results of proper Western education:
Is America a country?
Name a country what begins with U
Your proper Western education kinda of sucks, don't you think?
If you're going to try to show how stupid Americans are, it might help if you could actually type a sentence correctly.
exraver
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
If you're going to try to show how stupid Americans are, it might help if you could actually type a sentence correctly.
Hey bro, me no engrish, i was too busy working $6/hour jobs to feed my kids, instead of going to school and learn proper engrish.
Sorry, my mistake, won't happen again, capice? Xorosho, tovarisch?
Abercrombie
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
How about you just go to the COR instead? I mean 99% of the time you don’t seem to be serious or engaged in any sort of way. All you do is make stupid jokes and post retarded pictures.
Retarded posts deserve stupid jokes and retarded pictured dude, duh.
