RE: Hoax Article Accepted by OA Bentham Journal

[Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>]

I don't understand this.  Isn't peer review up to the editor and 
editorial board and payment up to the publisher?  My experience 
is not broad but aren't these usually separate. When I was editor 
of a BMC journal, I had disagreements with publisher on payment 
issues (waivers, etc.) but they had no input to our decisions on 
peer reviewers.  I have not followed the details of the Bentham 
case but is this an exception?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard D. Feinman
Professor of Biochemistry
Clinical Professor of Family Practice
SUNY Downstate Medical Center
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


"Chen, Xiaotian" <chen@bumail.bradley.edu>
Subject RE: Hoax Article Accepted by OA Bentham Journal


This story should be more of an OA problem than a peer-review 
problem.

According to the original LJ story, the journal "claims to 
enforce peer-review."

The model of author paying for OA publication may have 
contributed to this, while common sense tells us that traditional 
model (customers pay) may work better for quality control.

Xiaotian Chen
Bradley U Library
Peoria, Illinois
http://hilltop.bradley.edu/~chen/index.html