ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags peer review goalposts

Reply
Old 7th May 2009, 02:30 PM   #561
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Nice, Len! Very good work! This is excellent context on Bentham's relevance in the research world.
----

Now, to reiterate for others: I don't think anyone here is against the concept of Open Access journals in and of themselves. And to be honest, I don't think anyone would be against Bentham in particular if they would follow better, more responsible practices. The issue here, however, is not one of open access, nor is it one about the specific publishing "house". Rather, it is of the practices Bentham follows. Some irregularity is to be expected in a non-mainstream journal, but as Ryan Mackey discovered, their practices simply do not lend themselves to proper review of submitted material.

Bentham could be a respectable open access journal. But as of now, given their current practices, they are not.

One other thing: The other myth being slain is the truther chant of Bentham being a high-profile, respectable publication. As Lenbrazil has shown, they are far from the mainstream, and far from being well utilized in the scientific community. The value of a paper lies in how it influences other research, and that can be measured by how many other works reference it. That is the true measure of its utility. A publication that carries many oft-referenced works can be thought of as an "important" one. Len's work above clearly demonstrates that Bentham's publications are not.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2009, 01:10 AM   #562
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Lenbrazil View Post
What then is the IF of the Open Chemical Physics Journal (OCPJ)? Since its 1st issue came out in 2008 it won't be ranked by ISI till 2010.
It'll take longer than that. ISI only index journals that meet their quality criteria, which are fairly well respected in scientific circles. Right now, out of the 250+ journals they do, I can only find 10 Benthem Open titles on the ISI master journal list (just searching for journals containing the word 'Open' is easy) and these seem to almost exclusively be from biology disciplines. If this whole affair is anything to go off, the journals SJ published papers in won't be appearing any time soon unless they get their respective acts together. Until then, they count for precisely zero when trying to compute the most commonly accepted research metrics.

Another interesting point to make is that the hardcopy arm of Benthem publishing seems to be responsible for some conventional publications with some fairly respectable IFs (again, these are mainly from the biology disciplines). Can't think where it went wrong for Benthem Open.

Good work on the Google Scholar IFs; I was wondering about that.

ETA: It's just occurred to me that if some truthers latch onto this, they may start claiming that ISI is either 'in on it' or it exists as one of the self-perpetuating aspects of the fallacy that is mainstream science (like what the creationists and other assorted pseudoscience advocates have been doing for a long time now). Both sentiments are utterly ridiculous but either way, it still contradicts their claim that Jones has published his stuff in a 'mainstream scientific journal'.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Spud1k; 8th May 2009 at 01:21 AM.
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2009, 04:17 AM   #563
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Well I mean "ISI" does sound all "government importy" like.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2009, 06:11 AM   #564
Lenbrazil
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 974
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Well I mean "ISI" does sound all "government importy" like.

TAM

And I'm sure Thompson Reuters (the parent company) is utter dependant on government contracts, even worse they are part of the MSM
Lenbrazil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2009, 06:16 AM   #565
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Well I mean "ISI" does sound all "government importy" like.

TAM
Well, the US government did funnel all the money to bin Laden via the ISI in Pakistan.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.