tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5919517653892378810.post1934453916753755602..comments2009-10-27T15:10:32.686ZMatt Hodgkinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02376788922895957748noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5919517653892378810.post-90916096051516351172009-10-23T15:23:19.219Z2009-10-23T15:23:19.219ZBentham Open is mostly known for spamming researchers, so far as I can tell. I&#39;ve received one or two spam solicitations from them myself. As for the 9/11 conspiracy paper, the editor-in-chief of that journal resigned because it was published without her knowledge or approval:<br /><br />http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html<br /><br />They&#39;ve also accepted nonsense articles:<br /><br />http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/<br /><br />Doesn&#39;t seem to be a very professional organization ...Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06575721023965215904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5919517653892378810.post-29084895249414636042009-04-06T20:07:00.000Z2009-04-06T20:07:00.000ZI'm not sure if you're still reading comments this far back but thought I'd give it a shot. Recently, a scientific journal called the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" published a paper about traces of a sophisticated explosive found in the rubble of the World Trade Center. I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything like that, but this journal appears to be associated with Bentham Open and your site is the only one I found offering anything even resembling a critique of that organization. I was wondering, do you think the Open Chemical Physics Journal is a legitimate journal, and should this paper on the WTC be taken seriously? Thanks for your time.Crunchyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01168966625437103310noreply@blogger.com