Bentham Science Publishers, as it watches editors quit in protest of lax peer-review standards, is contending that it agreed to publish a specious research report by a Cornell University graduate student because it was trying to trap the perpetrator.
Mahmood Alam, Bentham’s director of publications, initially told The Chronicle he wasn’t aware of the case in which Bentham’s Open Information Science Journal accepted the computer-generated charade, submitted under a false name by Philip M. Davis, a doctoral student in communications at Cornell.
Mr. Alam subsequently told New Scientist, however, that Bentham, an open-access publisher, had recognized the hoax and tried to track its perpetrator “by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not.”
Meanwhile, Bambang Parmanto, an assistant professor of health-information management at the University of Pittsburgh, resigned as editor in chief of the Open Information Science Journal, saying he was no longer satisfied that Bentham was properly enforcing peer review. Mr. Parmanto told The Times of London, however, that he believes Mr. Davis also behaved unethically.
Another editor who resigned, Marc A. Williams, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Rochester, isn’t accepting the explanations. Mr. Williams quit the editorial board of a different Bentham journal, saying the company’s actions set “a poor example and a discreditable precedent.”
Mr. Alam’s assertion that Bentham had merely pretended to accept Mr. Davis’s submission “is clearly a fabrication” designed “to restore faith in a flawed system,” Mr. Williams said.
“That all being said, I firmly believe in the open-access model,” Mr. Williams told The Chronicle. “This system has hitherto proven to be workable and efficient. In my opinion it is a tried and trusted mechanism with otherwise-sound peer review and ethical integrity. It is without question the way forward for widespread and prompt dissemination of scientific data and information.” —Paul Basken
