Bentham Editor In Chief Quits after Jones article

[Fjolle]

Sorry for the google translate, i'll try with a real translation when i have some time...

Also i cant post links yet...

videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/chefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontroversiel_artikel_o m_911&sl=da&tl=en

Quote:

Chief progressing after a controversial article on 9 / 11
28. April 2009 kl. 11:11
An article about the explosives in the World Trade Center was brought in a scientific journal without the editors were aware of it. Now she draws, she tells the videnskab.dk.


By Thomas Hoffman


People in New York took the legs on his back, because dust cloud from the combination controlled the World Trade Center flew through the streets. A controversial article on the dust will now have a chief to run the almost equally well to get away from her journal. (Photo: Remko van Dokkum)
It caused great sensation, surprise and suspicion, as the journal The Open Chemical Physics Journal in April published a scientific article on the remnants of nanotermit, which had to be found in large quantities of dust from the World Trade Center.

One of the most surprised is apparently chief editor of the magazine. Professor Marie-Paule Pileni hear the first article as videnskab.dk write to her to ask for her professional assessment of the content of the article. This email will get her right away to slam the door to the magazine.

"I resign as the editor in chief, says the short answer in an email to videnskab.dk.

Printed without permission
A phone call reveals that chief Marie-Paule Pileni never been informed that the article would be put at The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal juggernaut Bentham Science Publishers.

"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 .

She feels not only snigløbet but wonder also that the article on dust tests after the terrorist attack on U.S. 11 September 2001 have actually found their way to The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

"I can not accept that the issue is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Sentence, "notes the former chief.

Dumpekarakter the journal
Chief Editor's dramatic departure gives critics an extra reason to doubt the article's conclusions, but Marie-Paule Pilini points out that because the issue is outside her expertise, she can not judge whether the article itself is good or bad.

In return get her publication to The Open Chemical Physics Journal dumpekarakter.

"I was really unsure about them in advance because I had repeatedly asked for information about the magazine without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals and is a bad sign. Now I see that it is because it is a bad magazine, "says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues:

"There are no references to The Open Chemical Physics Journal of other articles. I have two colleagues who agreed to publish an article that never has been quoted anywhere. If nobody reads it, it is bad magazine, and there is no need for it, "reads the harsh verdict.

The professor says that she a few years ago were invited to be editor of the journal, which would open new opportunities for new researchers, and because she supports the idea of open journals in which articles are accessible to all, she said yes.

"It is important to let people try to succeed, but we must not be allowed to all, and this is something decidedly rubbish. I try to be a serious researcher, and I do not want my name associated with this kind, "ends Marie-Paule Pileni.

Does not alter the study

"It surprised me, and it is unfortunate if it discredits our work. But her departure will not alter our conclusions, because it is a purely human thing, she is sur over. I still believe that we have made chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our investigation, she must love to criticize us for it, "said Niels Harrit, Associate Professor of Chemistry Institute of the University of Copenhagen.

The Niels Harrit co Steve Jones who has been in charge of contacts with Bentham, and so is the Danish researcher not offhand know what the editor responsible under the group have communicated with.

He knows to turn the names of two researchers - called referees - who have rated the article, but he would not disclose their names because they are 'in principle anonymous.

Dane withdrew from the magazine
Niels Harrit overall at the University of Copenhagen Nils O. Andersen itself has been in the pool of researchers who could be designated as under editor - 'editor' - in an article that was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He has recently decided to withdraw from the journal 'Editorial Advisory Board.

He said to videnskab.dk that the decision has nothing to do with Niels Harrit article and that he in fact did not have time to make any experience with the magazine so that he can not throw further light on how the magazine works.

'Open access is an exciting development and principle should test the idea, because there is no reason why commercial publishers make money on our work. But professional journal was the edge of my expertise, and since I had no thanks for being editor of two articles, I decided that I would rather spend my time on something else, "says physicist Nils O. Andersen, dean of Faculty of Science and editor at The European Physical Journal D.

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

[boloboffin]

http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/n...11&sl=da&tl=en

There's the link.

From what I can gather, the chief did quit over the article, but not precisely because it's a craptastic article. It's that the article was put into the journal without her knowledge. She says it has nothing to do with chemical physics and therefore she's unqualified to judge it as peer review, but she would not be surprised to find a political reason behind the article being published.

Thanks very much.

[T.A.M.]

Never saw something like this coming.

TAM

[MarkyX]

I would love to see this spin doctors of the 9/11 deniers try to this failure into a success.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by MarkyX

I would love to see this spin doctors of the 9/11 deniers try to this failure into a success.

Just proves why all the others stay silent. They don't want to lose their joobs.

[Aidoneus]

Originally Posted by MarkyX

I would love to see this spin doctors of the 9/11 deniers try to this failure into a success.

Easy."They" forced Professor Pelini to resign for printing the smoking gun.

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by MarkyX

I would love to see this spin doctors of the 9/11 deniers try to this failure into a success.

Here's the first attempt, verbatim, from DU:

Originally Posted by Fainter

Yawn. Her Resignation Has Nothing To Do W/Sufficiency Of Jones' Work

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Fjolle

She feels not only snigløbet but wonder also that the article on dust tests after the terrorist attack on U.S. 11 September 2001 have actually found their way to The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

I can't speak for anybody else, but speaking for myself, I simply cannot take anybody who feels snigløbet, seriously.

However, she has my sympathy for her snigløbet, if it's a painful condition. Also, I hope it's not contagious. Worse case scenario would be NWO crossing with swine flu virus to make swine-gløbet.

Well, back to work.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Here's the first attempt, verbatim, from DU:

While I suspect Jones' work is complete rubbish, they may be right.

Likely, she resigned because her reputation would have been forever blemished (easily found by a websearch) if such idiocy (9/11 truth crap) were attached to her name. Can't say I blame her.

Get use to it truthers, this is how the rest of the world reacts to you, and sees you...paranoia fringe that no one even wants to be associated with.

TAM

[R.Mackey]

Assuming this story is true, it puts paid any notion of "peer reviewed," regardless of her own belief or political affiliation.

Told you guys.

ETA: If, as stated in the article, the lead author knows the names of two reviewers, this is yet another irregularity in their process. The editors should be coordinating reviews and responses, and those should all be anonymized.

[Fjolle]

Originally Posted by metamars

I can't speak for anybody else, but speaking for myself, I simply cannot take anybody who feels snigløbet, seriously.

However, she has my sympathy for her snigløbet, if it's a painful condition. Also, I hope it's not contagious. Worse case scenario would be NWO crossing with swine flu virus to make swine-gløbet.

Well, back to work.

Heh. That means "Stabbed in the back".. Google apparently needs some help with danish..

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

While I suspect Jones' work is complete rubbish, they may be right.

Likely, she resigned because her reputation would have been forever blemished (easily found by a websearch) if such idiocy (9/11 truth crap) were attached to her name. Can't say I blame her.

Get use to it truthers, this is how the rest of the world reacts to you, and sees you...paranoia fringe that no one even wants to be associated with.

TAM

Yes, but the incident is only addressing the sufficiency of Jones' work indirectly and it was not offered to combat that precisely. It was offered to combat the notion of Bentham being a worthy instrument to measure that sufficiency. With this resignation, Herritt et al. are back to the drawing board to demonstrate their own sufficiency, and Sunstealer's work here shows that the paper lacks it overall.

[Lenbrazil]

No wonder she never got back to me! Poor woman now she is going to be hounded by those nuts! But she doesn't have that much to complain about because Bentham's invitation letters stated "your role as the Editor-in-Chief will not be an onerous one. You will not be expected to process any submitted manuscripts to the journal nor referee them (unless you choose to do so). "

This is of course consistent with Ryan Mackay's discovery that the editor-in-c of the civil engineering journal wasn't involved in the review process either.

Telling as well that not only the E-in-C wasn't involved in the review process but neither was the supposed lead author or even the supposed 2nd author (who Jones said should have been the lead).

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

No wonder she never got back to me! Poor woman now she is going to be hounded by those nuts! But she's have that much to complain about because Bentham's invitation letters stated "your role as the Editor-in-Chief will not be an onerous one. You will not be expected to process any submitted manuscripts to the journal nor referee them (unless you choose to do so). "

Oh, my word. "Let us use your name up front and you don't have to worry about reviewing any documents"? Who signs up for something like that? I'm afraid she deserves the knocks she gets from this, although it's to her credit that she's bailing in a big way.

[nicepants]

My favorite part:

Quote:

"I was really unsure about them in advance because I had repeatedly asked for information about the magazine without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals and is a bad sign. Now I see that it is because it is a bad magazine, "says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues:

"There are no references to The Open Chemical Physics Journal of other articles. I have two colleagues who agreed to publish an article that never has been quoted anywhere. If nobody reads it, it is bad magazine, and there is no need for it, "reads the harsh verdict.

[Pardalis]

LenBrazil, I googled Marie-Paule's name and found that you have been in contact with her:

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

Speaking of which last Saturday I e-mailed the E-in-C of the Open Chemical Physics Journal, Marie-Paule Pileni, who seems to be a big deal and a nanochemist. I asked her if she chose the refrees or even knew who they were, I’ve yet to get a reply. Perhaps if one of you science types tried she would feel more compelled to respond.

Did you get any response?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by metamars

I can't speak for anybody else, but speaking for myself, I simply cannot take anybody who feels snigløbet, seriously.

However, she has my sympathy for her snigløbet, if it's a painful condition. Also, I hope it's not contagious. Worse case scenario would be NWO crossing with swine flu virus to make swine-gløbet.

Well, back to work.

"The Open Chemical Physics Journal dumpekarakter"?

That does not sound good.

[eromitlab]

Quote:

The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal juggernaut Bentham Science Publishers.

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

LenBrazil, I googled Marie-Paule's name and found that you have been in contact with her:



Did you get any response?

No, see post # 13 above

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

"The Open Chemical Physics Journal dumpekarakter"?

That does not sound good.

Seperating the word into two, "dumpe karakter" results in "dump character", I've found that when Googlwe translator doesn't recognize a word 90% of the time it you break it down it will translate.

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Assuming this story is true, it puts paid any notion of "peer reviewed," regardless of her own belief or political affiliation.

Told you guys.

ETA: If, as stated in the article, the lead author knows the names of two reviewers, this is yet another irregularity in their process. The editors should be coordinating reviews and responses, and those should all be anonymized.

Apperently there are two types of peer review open and closed. In the latter no one but the editor knows who the reviewers are in open the names are made public.

The Bentham method is a strange new hybrid (eer lowbrid) the E-in-C and readership don't know who they are but the publisher (who chooses them) and the authors (who probablly recomended) them do

[FactCheck]

Originally Posted by MarkyX

I would love to see this spin doctors of the 9/11 deniers try to this failure into a success.

"[They] got to her"

I personally would like to verify this article.

[lapman]

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

Apperently there are two types of peer review open and closed. In the latter no one but the editor knows who the reviewers are in open the names are made public.

The Bentham method is a strange new hybrid (eer lowbrid) the E-in-C and readership don't know who they are but the publisher (who chooses them) and the authors (who probablly recomended) them do

IIRC, the author can recommend up to 4 reviewers.

[pgimeno]

I'm puzzled by Niels O. Andersen's role.

Quote:

"We understand that the Dean of Prof. Harrit’s college, Niels O Andersen, appears as the first name on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Bentham Science journal where the paper was published."

Now he announces he's quitting. Strange.

[Galileo]

The Bentham Journal published thousands of technical scientific articles every year.

[lapman]

Originally Posted by Galileo

The Bentham Journal published thousands of technical scientific articles every year.

Proof that those "thousands" of articles carry any weight in the scientific community?

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Galileo

The Bentham Journal published thousands of technical scientific articles every year.

I only count 12 in 2008 and 2009 for the chemical-physical journal

[Galileo]

Originally Posted by Julio

I only count 12 in 2008 and 2009 for the chemical-physical journal

did the editor read all of these?

[Mr.Herbert]

Originally Posted by Galileo

The Bentham Journal published thousands of technical scientific articles every year.

Did she read any of these?

[Galileo]

Originally Posted by lapman

Proof that those "thousands" of articles carry any weight in the scientific community?

They must have, because the editor reads every single one of them.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

Seperating the word into two, "dumpe karakter" results in "dump character", I've found that when Googlwe translator doesn't recognize a word 90% of the time it you break it down it will translate.

Even this is does not give a correct translation in this case. The correct literal translation in this case should be "dump grade". But the right word is "flunk" or "flunk out".

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Galileo

They must have, because the editor reads every single one of them.

Uh, did ya read the first post, champ?

Jones is hell bent on destroying Open Journals the same way he did the Cold Fusion and the Jesus Came to America, um, industry.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Galileo

did the editor read all of these?

I don't know. Ask her. But don't move the goalpost

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by Galileo

They must have, because the editor reads every single one of them.

Galileo, it has been established that the editor in this case did not read this article, had no awareness of it being included in the journal, and furthermore was not required to read or review ANY article in the journal bearing her shingle.

You may continue with your AI truther tests.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Norseman

Even this is does not give a correct translation in this case. The correct literal translation in this case should be "dump grade". But the right word is "flunk" or "flunk out".

Or maybe "flunky"?

[lapman]

Originally Posted by Galileo

They must have, because the editor reads every single one of them.

Do you have a comprehension problem? Whether or not the editors read them is irrelevant. However, the former editor does give some insight which is stated in #15. The fact is that the Bentham open access journals are not relevant in the scientific community.

[Galileo]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Uh, did ya read the first post, champ?

Jones is hell bent on destroying Open Journals the same way he did the Cold Fusion and the Jesus Came to America, um, industry.

Jones is only the third author, and no, he is not part of an insideous conspiracy. You believe that, I know.

[Galileo]

Originally Posted by Julio

I don't know. Ask her. But don't move the goalpost

You moved the goalpost, now I am putting it back where it belongs.

[Galileo]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Galileo, it has been established that the editor in this case did not read this article, had no awareness of it being included in the journal, and furthermore was not required to read or review ANY article in the journal bearing her shingle.

You may continue with your AI truther tests.

Peer reviewers are supposed to read the article, not editors. The editor is not qualified to evaluate the paper, nor are you.

[Galileo]

Originally Posted by Julio

I only count 12 in 2008 and 2009 for the chemical-physical journal

Bentham has a reputation for quality, not quantity.