From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bentham Science Publishers is a
of scientific, technical, and medical literature based at
(United Arab Emirates). Bentham publishes more than 116 -based
and over 230
journals and . Bentham Science Publishers has operating units in United States, Japan, China, India, and the Netherlands. Its
branch, Bentham Open Science, has received attention for its questionable peer-review practices.
Bentham Science has three main operating divisions: subscription-based journals, open access titles, and e-books. They publish research literature in all areas of science, medicine, technology, humanities, and social sciences, which is available in both electronic and print versions.
Bentham Science publishes 116 journals in the fields of biotechnology, biomedical, pharmaceuticals, technology, engineering, computer and social sciences. These titles are indexed in Scopus, Chemical Abstracts, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubsHub, etc.[]
Bentham Open Access publishes more than 100 peer-reviewed, free-to-view online journals under Bentham Open. This imprint has been identified as a
Bentham eBooks publish text books, handbooks, monographs, biographies, autobiographies, conference proceedings and review volumes in the areas of medicine, technology, humanities, natural, and social sciences.
Bentham Open journ however, the fact that a fake paper generated with
had been accepted for publication, has cast doubt on this. Furthermore, the publisher is known for
scientists with invitations to become a member of the
of its journals.
In 2009, the Bentham Open Science journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published a study contending dust from the
contained "active nanothermite". Following publication, the journal's
resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".
In a review of Bentham Open for ,
noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."
In 2013, The Open Bioactive Compounds Journal was one of the journals accepting an obviously bogus paper submitted as part of the
sting. It has since been discontinued.
. Homepage. Bentham Science Publishers.
. ACCESS | Asia 's Newspaper on Electronic Information Product & Service.
. Home Page.
Beall, Jeffrey. . Scholarly Open Access.
. Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
. Videnskab.dk (in Danish).
Peter Suber, Open Access News, April 24, 2008
. Open Chemical Physics Journal.
. Vindeskab.dk.
(July 2009). .
11 (1): 29–32.
: Hidden categories:&& 查看话题
Open Fuels & Energy Science Journal 投稿
本人在一国际会议上投了篇文章，后来又说推荐在几个收费期刊发表，其中有 Open Fuels & Energy Science Journal （EI），说发一篇要3200元，本人在该期刊主页找了半天也没找到有关收费情况和被EI收录情况，且该期刊好像是网络版的，有没有那个同胞在此期刊上发文章的，若自己能直接投吗？收费是否便宜点
怎么没人回复呀，自己顶一个，大家交流交流，过来人讲讲经验，谢谢:P 楼主，期刊主页给个链接啊 是个非学术的烂刊物。 /open/toefj/EBM.htm
好像是个系列刊物...... 这个期刊网站还有中文版哦......:D
http://www./ 经常收到此类广告，不理。还要花几千弄个非SCI，没意思。 EI JOURNAL ARTICLE
期刊。 网页上有收费，好象是300美元 PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:
Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is US $600.
Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is US $800.
Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini Review article is US $600.
Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is US $900.
Book Reviews: The open access fee for a published book review is US $450. 好像是个网络期刊呀？没有纸质期刊 楼主投的是哪个会议？ 我也刚投了一篇，不知道质量怎么样啊
var cpro_id = 'u1216994';
欢迎监督和反馈：本帖内容由
提供，小木虫仅提供交流平台，不对该内容负责。欢迎协助我们监督管理，共同维护互联网健康，如果您对该内容有异议，请立即发邮件到
联系通知管理员，也可以通过QQ周知，我们的QQ号为：8835100
我们保证在1个工作日内给予处理和答复，谢谢您的监督。
小木虫，学术科研第一站，为中国学术科研研究提供免费动力
广告投放请联系QQ： &
违规贴举报删除请联系邮箱： 或者 QQ:8835100
Copyright &
eMuch.net, All Rights Reserved. 小木虫 版权所有欢迎光临！ & 湖州师范学院&湖州师范学院求真学院图书馆
我的图书馆
证件号(教师工号、学生学号)
条码号(校外读者借书证条码号)
图书馆借书证已接入一卡通
2013级学生读者证件号即为学号,默认密码为身份证号码最后六位，如最后一位是“X”，改为“0”。例如：读者身份证号码为“***********65432X”，则密码就是654320
2012级及之前的学生读者证件号即为学号,默认密码为身份证号码倒数第七位到倒数第二位，例如：读者身份证号码为“***********765432X”，则密码就是765432
教工默认用户名(证件号)与密码均初始化为教职工工号，未办理一卡通接入图书馆手续的读者、校外读者，原离退休职工，未分配工号的在校其他职工及数据尚未同步成功的教工读者目前仍使用原借书证，相关登录方式与借书操作流程不变。
密码在进入系统后可由读者重新设置
Email由您自行设定，登陆后可以修改
密码取回需要您首先验证您的Email
Sorry, you can't see this example.
Your browser does not support including external HTML files as objects.
服务与软件
No items yet.
&&&&& 湖州师范学院图书馆热情欢迎并诚恳征求本校师生、校友、社会团体和各界人士友情捐赠图书、手稿及其它类型的文献资料。捐赠图书登记后，图书馆将秉承“物尽其用”的原则，依据本图书馆入藏有关标准确定是否收藏。被收藏的捐赠品将归湖州师范学院所有，图书馆根据捐赠品的实际状况决定收藏、保管和加工处理的方式并编入图书馆读者查询目录。对于不符合收藏标准的捐赠品，图书馆将以合适的方式进行处置。凡有意提供捐赠的人士或团体可联系：
联系部门：湖州师范学院图书馆（寄赠图书前烦请您先联系我们，谢谢！）
联系地址：浙江省湖州市学士路1号湖州师范学院图书馆采编部（快递及EMS），邮编：313000
联系人：1、黄莉娟（采编部主任）& 电话：& E-mail：huanglij@
&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 2、龚景兴（图书馆馆长）& 电话： &E-mail：gjx@
捐赠图书注意事项：
1.同样的图书一般以寄赠1-2本为宜
2.若您需要谢函，请务必在书中另附纸写明（或打印）谢函收件人、收件地址与邮编及联系电话，不要只写在信封或邮包上，谢谢！
3.欢迎您在所捐图书扉页留下珍贵题签。
&捐赠图书入藏标准：
1.本馆尚未收藏，或虽有收藏但复本不足；
2.品相基本完好；
3.内容适合大学读者阅读；
4.收藏复本一般不超过3册。
&不收藏的捐赠图书处置方式：
1.转赠其它图书馆收藏，优先支援贫困地区高校图书馆；
2.其他：存放二线书库A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse | Foreign Policy Journal
To search in site, type your keyword and hit enter
& A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse
This year will mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 disaster. In these 10 years, not only have extremely important scientific questions about this tragedy gone unanswered, but they have even been ridiculed to the point of deranged absurdity. We owe a valid scientific explanation to the 3000 victims on that day, the steadily dying health-stricken first responders, the dead and wounded soldiers, and the untold thousands upon thousands of dead and injured Afghans and Iraqis resulting from the terrifying never-ending “war on terror”. Critics of those skeptical of the official story of 9/11 have often objected that an alternative theory has never been put forth. To that end, this article will put forth a scientific theory for one important aspect of the 9/11 event, the Building 7 collapse.(Photo: http://911research.wtc7.net)On September 11, 2001 a third building came down. This building was 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7), a 47-story building about the width and length of a football field. NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, was tasked with officially explaining how WTC 7 fell. Their theory is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7[1]. Many people are under the mistaken impression that NIST’s theory of how WTC 7 fell down is a valid scientific theory. In science however, a valid theory must be the simplest theory available that best explains all the available empirical data.[2] This article will show that the NIST theory is a highly convoluted theory that cannot explain important observations.A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results. Unfortunately, NIST’s only empirical data to explain the eight story buckling, the data their computer model is based on, is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.[4] So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based. Since NIST’s theory does not explain fundamental facts of the WTC 7 incident and other important facts are so far unreplicated, we can categorically state that NIST’s theory is in no way scientific. At best, it could be referred to as faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST theory is in no way scientific, competent conscientious scientists must reject it in favor of a science-based theory.The best alternative to NIST’s WTC 7 theory is the controlled demolition theory. This theory states that additional sources of energy other than fire and gravity were used to bring down WTC 7. The strongest theories contend that these alternate energy sources included explosives and incendiaries. It is common knowledge that shaped charges can cut through steel support columns.[5] If all remaining support columns of WTC 7 were rigged with shaped charges on both sides, on each story for eight stories and were set off in the correct precisely timed manner, they could remove all remaining resisting support for WTC 7 allowing it to free-fall for 2.25 seconds. So unlike the official story, the controlled demolition theory does explain all the observables: the rapid onset of collapse, the largely symmetrical collapse into the building’s footprint, the roof line kink causing the building to fall in on itself, minimizing damage to other buildings, the intricate roll to the south at the end of the collapse away from valuable real estate, and the free-fall period.There definitely are problems with the controlled demolition explosives theories. For instance, although there is some evidence of explosive sounds,[6] in the available audio/visual evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, you don’t see the flashes and the loud booms typically seen with explosive controlled demolitions. But the sounds and flashes could be muted by Romex blasting mats,[7] for example. Non-typical technologies could also have been used. Recent experiments by the engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that relatively small amounts of thermate, thermite mixed with sulfur, can cut through vertical support beams like a shaped charge and yet produce much less noise.[8] These experiments also show that thermate can also easily weaken beams and cut bolts. Note that in typical controlled demolitions the building’s structure is weakened as much as possible to minimize the amount of high explosive needed. Explosive nano-thermite has also been found in the WTC dust.[9]So the inescapable and disturbing conclusion is that the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, brought down with explosives. This conclusion shows without a doubt that a thorough independent scientific investigation into the 9/11 event must be undertaken. Until now, this has not been done. I strongly urge all scientists and scientifically-oriented individuals to support Scientists For 9/11 Truth () in calling for an real unbiased scientific investigation of the 9/11 tragedy.Notes[1] NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7 [2]
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Theory in Science[3] NIST admits freefall of WTC 7 [4] /news//nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data[5] Shaped Charge Explosion Compared to Explosion at WTC [6] [7] Y. Kasai. The International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures. Demolition and reuse of concrete and masonry [8] 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate [9] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Volume 2, 2009, pp. 7-31. Available from:
Michael FullertonMichael Fullerton has a BSc in Computer Science and Psychology from the University of Calgary. He works as a software designer. He is a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. Fullerton began studying scientific problems with the official 9/11 story in 2006 and has written several articles on the subject. Visit his website at .&&& 查看话题
Call for Papers，Bentham Open Publications是否可以投稿？
部分内容如下：
Bentham Open are one of the leading international publishers for Open Access journals devoted to various disciplines in science and technology. Please refer to Bentham Open’s website at http://www.oa-analytical-chem.org/AllOpenTitles for a current list of publications.
WHY PUBLISH IN OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS?
Your article will obtain more citations.
You own the copyright to your article.
Your article will be peer-reviewed and published very fast
All interested readers can read, download, and/or print open access articles at no cost!
Your article can be read by potentially millions of readers compared to publishing in a traditional subscription journal.
Open access journals are freely available via the Internet for immediate worldwide open access to the full text of articles serving the best interests of the international research community. There are no subscription fees for open access journals. The modest open access publication costs are usually covered by the author's institution or research funds. Open access journals are no different from traditional subscription- they undergo the same peer-review and quality control as any other scholarly journal.
请问有没有投稿的
我也收到了，不过是organic chemistry 涉嫌野鸡，需谨慎 我也刚收到一份这个邮件，和Lz的一模一样，不知道有没有投过此期刊的朋友 ^_^
我也收到啦，分析化学的！
上次还发帖问啦http://emuch.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=978854
也就是收钱的吧:P Originally posted by 飞翔的蜘蛛 at
我也收到啦，分析化学的！
上次还发帖问啦http://emuch.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=978854
也就是收钱的吧:P 中文分析化学的？还可以了 看来，bentham open的系列杂志是收钱杂志，好像最近两年搞的。如果是好文章还是别投的好。
var cpro_id = 'u1216994';
欢迎监督和反馈：本帖内容由
提供，小木虫仅提供交流平台，不对该内容负责。欢迎协助我们监督管理，共同维护互联网健康，如果您对该内容有异议，请立即发邮件到
联系通知管理员，也可以通过QQ周知，我们的QQ号为：8835100
我们保证在1个工作日内给予处理和答复，谢谢您的监督。
小木虫，学术科研第一站，为中国学术科研研究提供免费动力
广告投放请联系QQ： &
违规贴举报删除请联系邮箱： 或者 QQ:8835100
Copyright &
eMuch.net, All Rights Reserved. 小木虫 版权所有}