Steven Jones Pays Obscure Journal To Publish His CT Article

[Bolo Boffin]

Going big at 911Blogger - Steven Jones has an article published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal!

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

...Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open e-journal.” TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and engineers (hint, hint). That's one reason this particular journal was chosen -- open access, free to download and make copies. What do Profs/Engineers say about it -- let us know would you?

Of course, this is not all of the story. It appears that the review process isn't as high a hurdle at The Open Civil Engineering Journal as it is at the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm

REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.

All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.

I'm sure that Dr. Jones had the names of several people he could draw on for "peer-review," just to facilitate the process, to be sure.

And then there's the matter of paying to have your article published.

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.

Dr. Jones' article is actually a letter, so he can expect that $600 invoice in the mail any day now.

Actual scholarly journals, of course, do not make the authors pay to have their articles printed, and they do not allow the author to influence the peer review process. Once again, Dr. Jones has fallen into a big barrel of FAIL.

[Twist_U_Up]

1. you forgot to include this part boffin

<With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.>

Like I have always said...........everyone sees through your bullshit jref mask.
Tell JR he might better stick to his spoon bending routine.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. I was here at DU long before I found the Randi forums, twist

I signed up here back in 2002. I've only been at the Randi forums for a year or so.

As usual, you've got it completely backwards. You don't PAY to publish in a scholarly journal (unless, maybe, you have copyright issues with your images). You don't SUGGEST your own reviewers for a scholarly journal.

The article's been long debunked. The only new thing is this claim of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. It's for crap.

PS: Tell James Randi? You labor under the illusion that James Randi cares one whit for these conspiracy theories. He's got other things to do.

[CrawlingChaos]

16. which begs the question..

WHY devote so much of your time to something you consider to be silly and fantasy-based? If that were true, any forward progress of 9/11 Truth would be self-limiting, and wouldn't require you to spend countless hours pounding furiously on your keyboard. You would welcome a new thorough, open and independent investigation because the more information that comes to light, the more it helps your case, correct?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Why don't you share your concerns about my posting habits with the moderators?

I can't speak for them, but I know that I don't give a shit what you think about how I post.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. What this article is: The places that 911 Truth cherrypicks from official reports

Without a complete account of the bullshit reasoning they fit these mined quotes into that gives the lie to their arguments immediately.

For example, No. 1 -

1. WTC 7 Collapse Issue

FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue” <2>.

FEMA analyzed the remarkable collapse of WTC building 7, the 47-story skyscraper that, even though it was not hit by a plane, collapsed about seven hours after the second Tower collapse. We certainly agree that FEMA’s best fire-based hypothesis “has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST’s final report on WTC 7 has been long delayed and eagerly awaited <3>. Apparently it is difficult to fully explain the complete and rapid collapse of WTC 7 with a fire-based hypothesis alone.

What's wrong here? Well, first off, Jones et al. report that 7 World Trade wasn't hit by a plane, but they neglect to add that it was hit by debris and then burned for over 7 hours. Furthermore, there were no attempts to contain the fires due to a variety of reasons that day. Unlike other similar building fires, WTC 7 burned unabated.

"Apparently it is difficult..." -- NIST has released the reasons that the report is taking so long. The team examining 7 is building a computer model to fully propagate collapse sequences for each hypothesis that makes it through a rigorous review. They are doing this with much less staff than was used for the Towers investigation, and they themselves had been pressed into the Towers investigation, causing them to drop work on 7 for a while.

These things take time. Jones et al. give no clue of knowing this, although they have, no doubt, pored over every single statement by NIST looking for quotes to mine.

Their point of agreement? It is usually twisted into a representation that a fire-based hypothesis is inherently of a low probability, and indeed, they show that this is their thought process here. However, the FEMA report had neither the time or the resources to do an in-depth evaluation of their various hypotheses. Further work had to be done -- and it is being done.

This "point of agreement" demonstrates exactly why none of this paper's authors should be allowed to participate in a scientific examination of this question. They have cherry-picked an statement from FEMA, twisted it out of context, and snidely dismissed the NIST examination's reasons for delay so that they can gloat about their own knowledge.

[mhatrw]

7. Your objections are completely unconvincing.

They can be boiled down to:

1) Jones didn't include every fact about WTC-7 that you wanted him to.

2) Jones concluded that NIST delaying its WTC-7 report for almost seven years (so far) indicates some difficulty.

Call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHmbulance.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. mhatrw finds my objections completely unconvincing?

[victordrazen]

13. I probably would too

but I usually don't read them (unless I have the misfortunate of having them directed at me.)

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Jones should release his Covering Letter.

The Covering Letter, as per the website, would have any suggested reviewers within the body of the text.

If the journal supplied its own reviewers, that would be one thing. But, as I suspect, if Jones supplied his own reviewers, then this charade is even more so one.

Release your Covering Letter, Dr. Jones. Let us all know if you suggested your own reviewers.

[salvorhardin]

5. Perhaps we should start an online petition to deliver to the journal that published Jones' article

They're clearly abusing the concept of peer review and should be held accountable. By releasing Jones' covering letter and apologizing the editors and publishers could begin to rebuild confidence in their journal.

[mhatrw]

6. Yes, let's make the scientific process even more political!

That can only set a GREAT precedent!

[LARED]

12. A problem you have is that the article

has nothing to do with a "scientific process". It is rehashed CT'er foolishness written in a way as to not alarm a reader that the authors are bona fide liars and kooks.

[mhatrw]

17. I don't have this problem. You have this bs opinion.

Suppose that people who debunk global warming organized themselves to put political pressure on any journal that published any study supporting the idea that global warming is a real, man-made problem. Do you think this would be a good idea?

[LARED]

20. Well lets see

Jones, Ryan, etal are a bunch of guys publishing a paper regarding stuff clearly out of their respective fields. (let's not forget the paper has almost nothing to do with civil engineering). Hence they have to pay someone to publish their nonsense. This is nothing sort of a desperate ploy on their part to muster some credibility to those that might be a tad ignorant of the technical issues. (say most of the CT community)


Also I fail to see your point about political pressure regarding this paper? Please explain


Now regarding global warming. I think the technical debate is far from declaring a clear winner. And if anything there is far more political pressure on shutting down those that are skeptical of a man-made problem. Either way the issue should be free from political pressures. By the way before you go off declaring me a right wing loon I presently lean toward a man-made problem.

[mhatrw]

27. I agree with you about global warming on all counts.

How about extending the courtesy being "free from political pressures" to the rest of science as well?

[LARED]

28. Again, where is the political pressure regarding 9/11

and Jones paper?

9/11 CTism, is not a science. I have yet to see science applied to any 9/11 CT. And please don't tell me Jones or any CTer is doing science. They all patently ignore every mundane science based explanation of anything they think is an abnormal.

[MarkyX]

33. You almost forgot...

They don't provide any evidence of their theories whatsoever.

I'm still waiting for Jones to cite demolition companies that uses "thermite" to take down a building and cite examples.

[LARED]

34. Remarkably, CTer's seem to think they have evidence

to back up their wacky theories. In fact some have gone so far to state those that support reality based thinking (ie the so called OCTers) must provide evidence to support their views.

Weird

[mhatrw]

43. Yes. It's very strange when a crime is committed to ask the prosecution

to supply any actual evidence to convict the accused.

It's much better to just declare a never-ending war based on "reality based thinking" and then spend every waking hour of your life criticizing and demeaning anyone asking for any evidence!

[LARED]

51. What crime are you talking about ? nt

[LARED]

8. Thanks for posting this

I actually read most of it and it is simply a paper that is well written but light as air. It nothing more than a paper thin stab at trying to sound respectable while blabbering on like a moron.

I wonder how long it will the CT'ers to start saying Jones, etal is now peer reviewed in a "respectable" journal; avoiding the sad fact they paid to be published?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Jones is actively encouraging this at 911Blogger.

He wants people to start shoving copies of the article into Noam Chomsky's face. :eyes:

[LARED]

11. I also noticed the title

"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" is nothing more that pure sophistry if you know a little history of the authors.

[CrawlingChaos]

14. Your desperation shows

It is ridiculous of you to try to claim this is vanity publishing, and only proves how desperate and dishonest you are. The point of an open access journal is that any scientist, student or layperson can view the contents without having to pay to do so, which is obviously highly desirable in this instance. Bentham is clearly a reputable publisher, and has the endorsement of seven Nobel Laureates.

You also fail to mention Dr. Jones has another paper that has passed peer review and will be published in a non-open journal in the near future. How are you going to spin that one?

[Grateful for Hope]

15. thanks for the info, CrawlingChaos. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Steven Jones paid $600 to get that article published.

Until he releases his Covering Letter and proves otherwise, I will maintain that he suggested his own reviewers as well. The whole thing stinks, including the silly article.

Find a single Nobel Laurate that would vouch for that piece of crap article.

[Laurier]

56. Which seven?

The link that Jones posted (which he claimed shows 7 Nobel laureates endorsing Bentham) is a dead link.

And, frankly, I can't imagine that a single one would endorse the lame letter that Jones paid to have published in this particular "journal".

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. Did you hurt yourself spinning and twisting like that?

I'm sure that Dr. Jones had the names of several people he could draw on for "peer-review," just to facilitate the process, to be sure.

What part of "Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper" did you not understand? There is no guarantee that they'll use the provided reviewers, is there?

What part of "Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution" did you not understand? This would disallow cronies and associates, wouldn't it?

As for paying to have your work published.... are you afraid to put your money where your mouth is? Do you not believe in your own message enough to pay for people to see it? It's like taking out a full page ad in a newspaper.... and by the way, he wouldn't have had to pay to be published if it had been rejected, would he? Again, do you lack the courage of your convictions so much that it's not worth investing in your cause to get the word out?

[AZCat]

22. I don't know if he would have had to pay...

if it had been rejected. There is work that goes into a review process, however abbreviated. I wouldn't object to the publisher asking for money to cover that cost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. That's just they way I read it...

"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."
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm

I was also thinking that the publishing fee was a cover for the actual review process, but I could be wrong... it seems to me that a lot of papers could be rejected pretty quickly, but those that hold merit are subjected to a stricter review, debate, discussion, whatever... and take more time. Look at the whole process involved in just *submitting* a paper to this service. They make you jump through hoops to get everything right before you even attempt to submit a paper for review. Just check the link above... bolo had to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page just to find that fee schedule (and something he disagreed with, imo ) .

I just think that saying "he paid to get published" is disingenuous, at best, and it really shouldn't even be a talking point.

[AZCat]

24. He did pay to get published.

This is not standard, although how widespread a practice it is I cannot say. Nor can I answer whether this impacts the quality of review. But if you're paying for publication, it makes sense that the publisher might charge for review if the paper is rejected. What I find unfortunate is that it appears authors of rebuttals to Jones' paper must also pay a fee for publication.

Make no mistake - I'm happy Jones is publishing in something other than his own journal (finally). I'm just not sure this is the right way to do it.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. I just see a classic struggle here, myself....

It goes to the argument that's always here:

A: Show me proof!

B: Here's a link!

A: That's not proof! It's from (insert name/agency here)...

The same is happening here:

A: When is a 'troofer' gonna come up with a peer reviewed, published piece of work??

B: Well look here, this was just peer reviewed and published!

A: Meh! He had to pay to get it published.... :eyes:



Everyone wants everything, but nothing is good enough for anyone...

[AZCat]

26. The problem might be one of miscommunication.

I can't of course speak for others, but I had always understood the call for published articles as the beginning of a technical discussion, not the end of one. Jones' choice of publisher in my opinion puts a damper on the process by charging the participants a fee. Will this stop or limit the responses to his article? I can only speculate, but I cannot see how it would promote responses.

[Ghost in the Machine]

29. Could be... or it could be different thought processes for different personalities..

Myself, I'm of the mind that says 'put your money where your mouth is'. In other words, if you believe so strongly in your theory/opinion, really truly, honestly don't doubt yourself one bit, why not pay to get it published? I just see it as the same as taking out a full page ad in a paper. You want a wider audience to hear what you have to say.

The same goes for rebuttal. If you honestly believe in your theory/opinion and think you can rebutt his theory/opinion... why not put your money where your mouth is? He paid to have his opinion/theory peer reviewed, shouldn't you pay to be able to smack him down in front of these peers if you honestly think you can?(I'm not meaning "you" personally, just in the generic term)

I think paying to respond will keep in line with having your response peer reviewed before publication, also. You have the same options of supplying potential reviewers and every other option that he had. It keeps it a level playing field, imho.

Again, maybe it's just my thought processes, but then I'm the type of person who still values a person's word and a handshake more than a contract... contracts have 'weasle outs' and loopholes... but when you look someone in the eyes, give them your word & shake their hand... that's the very core of your soul & character. There are no weasle outs or loopholes.

[AZCat]

30. It's an interesting idea.

But I still think that publishing a paper is the beginning rather than the completion of the discussion. It still remains to be seen how fruitful that discussion will be, but I don't imagine that his paper will go without a response.

I don't think the current playing field is not level, though - both author and respondents must still meet the same criteria.

I'll have to think about this, but I can't think of any reason right now why one paradigm is "better" than the other (excepting the issue we've already discussed, which I might be willing to concede).

[MarkyX]

31. Look at the foot notes

<13> S. E. Jones, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 1-47, September 2006. . Available: www.journalof911studies.com .

<14> F. Legge and T. Szamboti, “9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden collapse initiation was impossible”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 18, pp. 1-3, December 2007. . Available: www. journalof911studies.com Accessed March 17, 2008].

Steven Jones is referencing HIMSELF in this "peer reviewed" paper.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. The plot, as they say, thickens.

http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0804/msg00027.html

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/2008/01/bentham-oa-publishing-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:
[e-mail].

Thank you.

Richard Poynder
www.richardpoynder.co.uk

Evidently, Bentham, they of the seven Nobel Laurates, has been spamming not only for article, but for editors as well. Full story at the link.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. But wait! There's more!

http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html

As a publisher and editor of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, a leading open access journal (and the #2 cited health informatics journal), I am (as many of my colleagues) usually very sympathetic to any new open access journal start-ups, and I know that some sort of marketing is necessary to attract submissions from top authors (luckily, JMIR has survived its first 10 years and now naturally attracts submissions from top authors). While JMIR never engaged or engages in any unsolicited bulk emails (we send out content alerts only to users who have opted-in), some other (in particular open access publishers) seem to betray the trust and sympathy bonus they receive by many researchers by relentlessly spamming researchers' email accounts asking for articles / submissions.

...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.".

Buyers beware! There is a (limited) number of "serious" OA journals out there (such as PloS, JMIR, and others), where authors (or authors' institution) pay for the publication costs, but there are also throw-away journals out there from shady publishers trying to cash in on the current surge of interest in open access publishing.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[CrawlingChaos]

39. That's it?

So you searched furiously and that's all the dirt you could dig up on Bentham - a couple of complaints about unsolicited emails? And the delicious irony here is that the latter item you posted is from a competitor attempting to tout his own superiority - when he himself runs an open access journal, which also charges the author a fee. (up to $1500, as far as I could tell from their rather intricate fee schedule). So is he a "vanity" publisher??

Let us know when you've found something related to the quality of Bentham's published articles, or if their review process is somehow lacking as compared to other journals. You appear to have plenty of time to devote to this. On second thought, maybe you'd better save yourself for that second paper coming up, which will require you to come up with something other than the bogus "vanity" accusation.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. What are you going to do, bleed on me? n/t

[CrawlingChaos]

41. yet another substance-free one-line response

As a debate technique, it's 100% ineffective, and best left in the schoolyard.

It roughly translates to: I have no intelligent response.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Idiotic "nuh-uh" posts like the one you posted don't have many intelligent responses.

Seriously.

Bentham has been spamming all manner of scholars, not only for articles but to be on all kinds of editorial boards, regardless of whether a person would be qualified to serve on those boards or not. Many scientists are warning each other, putting it in the category of a scam. All of that is what you responded to. Are you going to wave seven Nobel Laurates around again?

PLUS, it's now come to light that if you are on the Editorial Board of one of their magazines, YOU GET 50% OFF YOUR ARTICLE FEE. Act now and they'll throw in a Slicer-Dicer-Handy-Gene-Splicer.

Steven Jones et al. are busted. They submitted their idiotic paper to a cheap scam of a "open-access journal," and are now running around bragging about it.

[mhatrw]

46. You have nothing whatsoever. Nothing but a bunch of hot air.

What a joke.

[CrawlingChaos]

47. Either you don't read...

... or you have the ability to blot out parts of reality that don't suit you. Or both.

You're attempting to inflate a couple of trivial complaints about unsolicited email into a full-scale-shock-and-awe smear campaign. (maybe that's just force of habit from your work on the OCT Defender Super Squad, because you guys seem to specialize in baseless character assassinations - again, NOT something you have to resort to if the truth is on your side). You ignore the fact that your quoted source is a publisher of a competing AUTHOR-PAYS open-access journal. And yes, the Nobel Laureate endorsements are reality -- deal with it.

No one is "busted" here, except you, looking really foolish and desperate.

[Laurier]

57. Well, since you asked

Here's something that indicates another real problem with Bentham's quality and its "peer review" process, which is certainly lacking as compared to legitimate journals.

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.

...

PS. In case you are wondering, yes, I did hit the delete key on those Bentham invitations.

And this:

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.

[mhatrw]

45. Damn! Bentham's competitor doesn't like Bentham's sending him

mass emails!

Nothing could be more damning than a competitor taking issue with his competition's more aggressive marketing practices!

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Still more? They're giving it away!

Bentham wrote the book on spam.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

They send 11 emails to one person, asking him to be an editor for journals in such diverse subjects as Business, Analytical Chemistry, and Bioinformatic. The guy can't get off their list, no matter how many times he hits Unsubcribe.

And now, these guys have a book on how to spam!

:rofl:

For most people, the term 'SPAM' conjures up the image of hundreds of annoying, and at times offensive, e-mails flooding their inbox every week. But for a few, SPAM is a way of life that delivers an adrenaline rush fueled by cash, danger, retribution, porn and the avoidance of local, federal, and international law enforcement agencies. 'Inside the SPAM Cartel' offer readers a never-before seen view inside this dark sub-economy. You'll meet the characters that control the flow of money as well as the hackers and programmers committed to keeping the enterprise up and running. You may disagree with their objectives, but you can't help but to marvel at their ingenuity and resourcefulness in defeating spam filters, avoiding being identified, and staying one step ahead of the law.

And STEVEN JONES GAVE THESE GUYS MONEY!

:rofl:

Oh, man. Thanks for the laughs, guys. It's not always this nice down in the dungeon, but this is beautiful.

Come on, I need a little more self-righteous opprobrium from the defenders of these quacks. Sniff about "killing the messenger" and how I got nothing. :rofl:

You guys are defending the Nigerian con artists!

[mhatrw]

49. More utter bullshit.

Bentham published a book on spam. Big fucking deal. Once again, you have nothing. Using your ridiculous standards, almost every publisher in the world could be immediately demeaned. Certainly, any publisher who has ever published a book written by any Republican politician is far worse than this.

And what do you make of the publishers of the Bible?

[Bolo Boffin]

50. How sad.

Bentham published a book on HOW TO DO SPAM. WHY you should do spam. THE BEST WAYS to do spam. HOW TO AVOID BEING CAUGHT and PROSECUTED.

The writing on this wall, mhatrw, is three feet high.

[CrawlingChaos]

52. Are you feeling alright?

Or is this normal behavior for you? That is obviously a link to a paper meant to inform readers on how spammers operate. It is not a how-to manual.

Just because you throw your hands in the air and announce "I WIN!" does not mean you won. Just because you pepper your post with a ridiculous number of ROFL emoticons, it does not make your statements any less absurd.

You are being very silly. In all seriousness, maybe you need a break from this.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. I don't blame you for trying to make the conversation about me.

There really isn't much else you can say.

Steven Jones paid $600 to get the open access equivalent of the Nigerian con artists to publish his paper. Let's talk about ANYTHING but that.

:rofl:

I win! I get a cookie!



The good kind, not the kind that disreputable spam websites try to use to take over your computer.

Call me up when Steven's other weak paper sees the light of day. If it does pass an actual peer-review process, it should be interesting to compare how it reads to what he likes to spout off when he's talking microspheres (it is about his terribly mysterious microspheres, isn't it?).

[mhatrw]

54. What do you make of the publishers of the Bible, boloboffin?

Should they burn in hell as well?

What has caused more suffering in the world, Christianity or spam?

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Hmmm.

I'm thinking!!

[mhatrw]

44. My God. So kill the messenger has now extended to kill the messenger's publisher?

The maniacal desperation of such transparent tactics never fails to amaze.

[Laurier]

37. Vanity publishing is all the rage these days

for people who can't get their nonsensical crap published legitimately.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Thanks for finding that infomation I posted above.

I couldn't resist. Other scientists are busy warning each other about Bentham. Steven Jones is cutting checks.