I have written about Bentham - that Spam bots of science publishing before. Got an email from them today - it is wrong in so many ways. I thought I would just post it here - and let people judge for themselves but am a bit wary of calling attention to them and putting out any of their message. So I am going to put out mine
BENTHAM - LEAVE ME THE $&%#@ ALONE
And if that is not enough for you, how about reading Richard Poynder's piece on them from four years ago. Seems they have not changed a bit.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Bentham publisher - so wrong in some many ways #SPAM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Most recent post
Another day to think, to pause, to ponder.
Panorama of Sycamore Park and the memorial to Karim A bit over 10 years ago I wrote a blog post that I repost all the time. Entitled "...
I have a new friend in Google Scholar Updates I have written about the Updates system before and if you want more information please see...
New article out from the Eisen Lab: Isolation and sequence-based characterization of a koala symbiont: Lonepinella koalarumSee Isolation and sequence-based characterization of a koala symbiont: Lonepinella koalarum Paper based on PhD thesis work of Katie Dahlha...
Just got this press release by email. I am sick of receiving dozens of unsolicited press releases, especially those in topics not related ...
By now I should point out that this has all the trappings of a classic pyramid scheme.
(see Wikipedia for the mathematics)
Why else would Springer acquire BMC?
Wolters Kluwer acquire Medknow?
The top tier journals mathematically require vast numbers of bottom tier journals so they can keep their citation counts up.
Eugene Garfield noted the 80-20 rule. Now it is completely being gamed. The more the bottom grows the more the top can expand.