Comments on: Adventure in Open Access Publishing

By: Awaker To Make People "snap out of it"!!!! - Page 10

Awaker To Make People "snap out of it"!!!! - Page 10 — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:34:05 +0000

[...] !!! Editor quits after journal accepts bogus science article | Education | guardian.co.uk Adventure in Open Access Publishing The Scholarly Kitchen OA publisher accepts fake paper :The Scientist [10th June 2009] This is one (huge) problem I have [...]

By: Editor de una revista de Bentham Science Publishers abandona por malas prácticas de la editorial « Francis (th)E mule Science’s News

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:37:47 +0000

[...] Open Software Engineering Journal,” también publicada por Bentham Science Publishing. Pero un mes más tarde el artículo fue rechazado. Utilizó un pseudónimo y afiliación [...]

By: The Progressive Mind » OpEdNews » Dr. Moffett Smears ‘Active Thermitic’ Paper by Association- Again

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:09:39 +0000

[...] I reported on a case in which a nonsensical article submitted to another Bentham Science journal was rejected after going through peer review [1].” Open Access Publisher Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for [...]

By: Dr. Moffett Smears ‘Active Thermitic’ Paper by Association- Again by Erik Larson « 9/11 Reports

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:40:36 +0000

By: Open Access Publisher Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for Dollars « The Scholarly Kitchen

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:43:07 +0000

[...] I reported on a case in which a nonsensical article submitted to another Bentham Science journal was rejected after going through peer review [...]

By: Paying Open Access Fees « The Scholarly Kitchen

Paying Open Access Fees « The Scholarly Kitchen — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:43:47 +0000

[...] University of Calgary Open Access Authors Fund will fund publishers like Bentham Science (noted for their academic spam campaign), but will only provide funds for hybrid journals when they [...]

By: Philip Davis

Philip Davis — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:42:35 +0000

Matt,
Thanks for your comment. Please remember that this was not a controlled experiment, and as Bruce eludes to above, the ethics of conducting such an experiment are questionable.

While one could learn a lot from an experiment with replication, it is unlikely that any Institutional Review Board would accept such a proposal today. I doubt they would even approve the classic Peters and Ceci study which involved only 12 manuscripts [1].

Yes, the “no withdraw” clause is disturbing when one considers the integrity of the published scientific record.

[1] Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological articles: the fate of accepted, published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 187-195.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:35:56 +0000

It’s embarrassing enough to have sent it for peer review. A controlled study would involve sending similar nonsensical papers to similarly ranked journals at other major publishers to see how they handle them. I bet Medical Hypotheses would accept it…

That “no withdraw” clause is disturbing. What, even if the authors realise they’ve made a scientific error? Even if the journal fails to find reviewers?

By: Bruce Lewenstein

Bruce Lewenstein — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:50:20 +0000

Phil,

The ethics issue on your “experiment” is actually quite complicated. For commentary, see Hilgartner, S. (1997). The Sokal Affair in Context. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(4), 506-523.