Talk:Bentham Science Publishers

It is a common myth that the CRAP paper got "published" in Bentham. It never was. Notice that no one ever cites an issue number or date it was supposedly published. The CRAP paper was only accepted for initial review. The next step would be that the author submits the application fee (about $800). He then would be assigned a qualified peer reviewer who would read it in detail and make suggestions to the author. At that stage the paper would probably have been seen for what it was, a hoax. It is misleading to say that the paper was "accepted by Bentham for publication" because it never was, and never appeared. In the end, the process worked. Bentham sells science books and has a reputation to preserve among science teachers who may recommend its books for their students. Although the myth makes a funny story, RationalWiki should rationally state the facts, not slander Bentham, nor mislead the public. Inetcafebooth6 (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bentham's director of publication claimed they merely sent a fake acceptance to flush out the hoaxer,[4] but no-one believes him.

Please provide a source or survey to justify the claim that "no one believes him". How do you know? "No one" means zero percent (0%). There may be at least one person who do believes him. In RationalWiki we should write with rational precision. Inetcafebooth6 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "we"? - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
Can someone sort out the redirect/article rename - I am uncertain as to what is appropriate. Anna Livia (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)