Bentham Journal Accepted a Faked Paper

Here to clear up a few things:

1) All journals receive hoaxes at times, and it is not always caught immediately. As pointed out by a previous poster, many peer reviewed journals had accepted hoax papers.

2) New Scientist claims Bentham only published the paper to find out the identity of the true hoaxer.

3) You [cam] are debating the credibility of the journal based upon one hoax to attack Jones' research. This is irrelevant.

4) You [cam] have not touched on what is wrong actually with Jones' paper.

5) Even if Jones' paper was not peer reviewed, if it were flawed, the 911 "debunkers" would be all over it, citing it at any chance to strike at the 911 truth movement, and here you are making petty arguments over nothing.

6) You [cam] don't actually have an argument, you are just slinging mud. To be fair, you tried to present a speck of pseudo-argument [really just mudslinging] in the beginning [calling the journal not credible, trying to transfer property to Jones].

7) All aspects of your "argument" and "logic" have been over the course of this thread proven to be not sound and all hope of you convincing anyone has long been extinguished since the end of the first page.

8) The gist of your argument is this:

Johnny is a reputable apple-picker and has consistently picked good apples. One day Johnny picked a bad apple. Therefore, [can't tell what you are trying to say] either:
a) all apples picked by Johnny must be bad and we can never trust Johnny, or
b) one specific apple previously picked by Johnny a long time ago [an apple called Steven Jones' paper] that is irrelevant to the bad apple must also be bad

Neither one of these conclusions that you are arguing can be derived from the argument.



So please, just give up now cameronfox, before you really get embarrassed.

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
Here to clear up a few things:

1) All journals receive hoaxes at times, and it is not always caught immediately. As pointed out by a previous poster, many peer reviewed journals had accepted hoax papers.

Correct. Some accept them from time to time.

2) New Scientist claims Bentham only published the paper to find out the identity of the true hoaxer.

Key word here is claim. Please see my "Pee Wee Herman" excuse on page 2.

3) You [cam] are debating the credibility of the journal based upon one hoax to attack Jones' research. This is irrelevant.

A hoax paper like this does question the credibility of the journal. I am not saying ALL papers are in question. (although some have put those words in my mouth)

4) You [cam] have not touched on what is wrong actually with Jones' paper.

I haven't touched on what's right about it either. Like you, I am not qualified either way. This thread has nothing to do with the substance of the Jones paper. There is already a thread where it is being discussed.

5) Even if Jones' paper was not peer reviewed, if it were flawed, the 911 "debunkers" would be all over it, citing it at any chance to strike at the 911 truth movement, and here you are making petty arguments over nothing.

The "debunkers" have in fact found several flaws with the paper. I, personally can't say too much regarding their work either.

6) You [cam] don't actually have an argument, you are just slinging mud. To be fair, you tried to present a speck of pseudo-argument [really just mudslinging] in the beginning [calling the journal not credible, trying to transfer property to Jones].

The journal is suspect. There are actually many that feel the same way. Maybe that's why the only people to actually post anything about Jones paper was the Danish science news site.

The fake paper is getting more press than the Super Dooper Nanothermite paper.


Let's look at some information about Bentham:

Klaus Graf calls for a boycott of Bentham. See his comments in German or Google's English.

JURN, the search engine for OA journals in the arts and humanities, has stopped indexing Bentham journals.

Tom Wilson argues that the Bentham scandal is another reason to prefer no-fee OA journals.

The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) points out several ways in which practices at Bentham Science appear to fall short of the association's code of conduct, and that Bentham is not a member of OASPA.

www.earlham.edu...

See also pipeline.corante.com...

www.boston.com...

libcom.org...

staringatemptypages.blogspot....-enablers.html...

If you would like to read a paper claiming proof that it is not thermite, please go here.


[edit on 17-6-2009 by CameronFox]