Bentham is being exposed for the "paper mill" that it is...

[SDuderstadt]

Bentham Editor Resigns over Steven Jones' Paper

Looks like the "peer-review" didn't include the editor:


"They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I did not mean that the article was published. I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France .


The language sounds a little stilted, but it's translated from the original (Danish).

Update: A translation of the article from Steve S, one of our commenters:


Editor in chief resigns after controversial article on 9/11
28 April 2009
From videnskab.dk ( Danish science news service)

An article on explosives in the World Trace Center was published in a scientific journal without the editor in chief knowing about it. Now she is resigning, she tells Videnskab.dk ()
By Thomas Hoffman ([email protected]).

It created a great attention, surprise and suspicion when the Open Chemical Physics Journal in April published a scientific article on remains of nanothermite which were found in great amounts in the dust from the WTC.

One those most surprised is apparently the editor in chief of the journal. Professor Marie-Paule Pileni first heard about he article when videnskab.dk wrote to her to ask for her professional assessment of the article’s content. The e-mail got her to immediately close the door to the journal.

“I resign as the editor in chief”, was the abrupt answer in an email to videnskab.dk

PRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION
A telephone call reveals that editor in chief Marie-Paule Pileni had never been informed that the article was going to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal giant Bentham Science Publishers.

“They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.

She feels not only stabbed in the back, but is puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Concludes the former editor in chief.

FAILING GRADES TO THE JOURANL
The editor-in-chief’s dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the article’s conclusions, but Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.

Nevertheless, the publication gets her to give the Open Chemical Physics Journal failing grades.

“I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal”, says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues:

“There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it”, is the harsh verdict.

The professor informs us that a few years ago she was invited to be editor in chief of a journal which would open new possibilities for new researchers and because she supports the idea of open access journals where the articles are accessible to everyone, she said, “Yes” thank you.

“It is important to allow people to try and gain success, but one should not be allowed to do everything, and all this is certainly a bunch of nonsense. I try to be a serious researcher, and I will not have my name connected with this kind of thing,” concludes Marie-Paule Pileni.

DOES NOT CHANGE THE INVESTIGATION
The editor-in-chief’s decision is viewed as regrettable by the Danish chemist Niels Harrit, who is one of the authors to the controversial article on nanothermite in the dust from the WTC.

“It surprises me, of course, and it is regrettable, if it discredits our work. But her departure doesn’t change our conclusions, for it is a purely personnel related thing she his angry about. I still believe that we have carried out chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our study, she is welcome to criticize us for it,” says Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the Institute of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen.

It is Niels Harrit’s coauthor Steven Jones who was in charge of contact to Bentham, and therefore the Danish researcher is presently not aware which responsible assistant editor the group has been communicating with.

However, he does know the names of the two researchers –so-called referees—who have reviewed he article, but he will not give their names because they ‘are in principle anonymous’.

DANE WITHDREW FROM THE JOURNAL
Niels Harrit’s superior at the University of Copenhagen, Nils O. Andersen has himself participated in the pool of researchers who could be selected as editor, on an article which should be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He has recently chosen to resign from the journals Editorial Advisory Board.

He informs videnskab.dk that the decision has nothing to do with Niels Harrit’s article, and that he otherwise did not achieve having any experiences with the journals, so that he cannot shed further light on how the journal operates.

“Open access is an exciting development, and as a principle the idea should be tried out for there is no reason for the commercial publishers to earn money from our work. But professionally, the journal lay at the margin of my expertise, and as I had said No to be editor of two articles, I decided that I would not use my time on anything else.”, explains Nils O. Andersen, dean of the faculty of Natural Sciences and editor of the European Physical Journal D.

It has not yet been possible to get any comment from Bentham Science Publishers.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html

[SDuderstadt]

1. More damning news about Bentham from Nature News

Bambang Parmanto, an information scientist at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and editor-in-chief of The Open Information Science Journal, told Nature that he had not seen the manuscript or any peer review comments before it was accepted. Nor was he informed that the manuscript had been accepted for publication. "I think this is a breach of policy," he says, adding: "I will definitely resign. Normally I see everything that comes through. I don't know why I did not see this. I at least need to see the reviewer's comments." Parmanto says that Bentham Science Publishing told him that the manuscript had been reviewed by one member of the journal's editorial board. "The peer review didn't work," says Parmanto, who now fears that the journal's publishing system could be open to abuse. "The publisher could take advantage of the fees, and that is why I want to leave," he says.

http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/06/

[SDuderstadt]

2. More bad press for Bentham

Dear All:
I don't know how many of you have received this letter. Apparently it originates from India, to me it looks like an attempt to create a respectable looking vanity press operation - using your name as a fig leaf. After some inquiries, I declined the offer, and would advise you too to be careful before accepting such "invitations" .


Best,


Shonny Guiora

http://www.freelists.org/post/neuroling/caveat-emptor-ps-FYI

[SDuderstadt]

3. And the bad news for Bentham just keeps piling up...

How not to launch a journalPosted by Ivan Oransky

Comment on this news story

Asking prominent people to serve on a journal's editorial board is no simple task. First, you have to identify the leaders in your field. That usually means reading lots of papers, going to meetings, and speaking to a network of experts you trust, among other strategies. For Bentham Science Publishers Ltd, "a major STM journal publisher of 70 online and print journals, and 4 print/online book (series)" that "answers the informational needs of the pharmaceutical, biomedical and medical research community," however, there's evidently an easier way: Search the Internet and blast Emails to everyone vaguely related to your subject.

That must be how Bentham found me so that they could extend an invitation to serve on the editorial board of a journal they've just launched called "Recent Patent Reviews on Anti-Infective Drug Discovery." As I sat and scratched my head at the Email request from a few weeks ago, I thought that perhaps they had come across some of the "Patent Watch" columns I once wrote for The Scientist. Some of those were brilliant, my mother and I wholeheartedly agree, but none of them topped 300 words and in any case, I am about as well-qualified as my mother, an outstanding grade school educator, as an expert on patents.

These feelings were only confirmed once I looked at the editorial board of what I believe is the journal to see the august company in which I would find myself if I accepted this flattering offer. The journal I found matches in every respect, including its launch date, as the one described in the Email, except for the fact that it's lacking the word "Reviews" in its title.

But who at Bentham is paying attention to such details? Take, for example, how they refer to me in their note: "Prof. Oransky," which is as accurate as saying that I'm a movie star because a co-worker once gave me a one-minute part in a short film she shot in the office I was working in. My academic titles at New York University are adjunct professor (of journalism, not science) and clinical assistant professor of medicine (a voluntary part-time appointment).

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/23230/

[SDuderstadt]

4. "How not to Launch a Journal" pt 2 (in case you have trouble accessing it from the link...

Then there is the king of all flattery, if only the details checked out: "We have selected you in recognition of exceptional discovery work in your field." OK, so that's a really big glaring hole in my CV -- that whole drug discovery work part. But wait, if I parse the sentence, maybe they just mean they're recognizing exceptional work by other people by selecting me. Strange, but I'm quite happy to bask in adulation meant for others. Heck, some might argue that's what managing a staff is all about.

Now to my duties as an Editorial Advisory Board Member. First, I would have to "contribute a review article on recent patents in your field considering new and novel anti-infective agents of great importance. This may be a mini review or full-length review article. All articles will be peer reviewed." That one would be easy. My field has nothing to do with new and novel anti-infective agents, let alone those of great importance, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that I would not actually have to contribute said review. Not even a mini review. I'm sorry to dash Bentham's fantasy that this gig I hold as a magazine editor is just a day job while I wait for the US Patent and Trademark Office to give its stamp of approval to my exquisite intellectual property.

Second, I would have to "peer review some of the reviews on patents, which are in your area of expertise and submitted by other authors." The letter claims this would happen 2-3 times per year, but I'm going to again confidently say that the number of papers I would be peer-reviewing would be a big fat zero, since none of the reviews submitted to this particular journal would be in my area of expertise.

Given the lack of work, combined with the prestige -- two Nobel Laureates "strongly" recommend the journal on Bentham's site! I'm tempted. But Bentham, if you're reading, I think I have to decline this kind and flattering offer. If you actually believe any of the things you wrote about me in that letter, however, I'm available as a consultant for an exorbitant fee.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Kicked just for Bill (Wildbilln864)...

who would do well just to read it...