Bentham publisher – so wrong in some many ways #SPAM

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.

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Author: Jonathan Eisen

I am an evolutionary biologist and a Professor at U. C. Davis. (see my lab site here). My research focuses on the origin of novelty (how new processes and functions originate). To study this I focus on sequencing and analyzing genomes of organisms, especially microbes and using phylogenomic analysis

One thought on “Bentham publisher – so wrong in some many ways #SPAM”

  1. Jonathan
    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.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: