monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

That your post was extremely unnecessary, unprovoked and terribly European. You are generally above that sort of thing.

What a joke, Saudi Arabia is a bastion of human rights abuses and tRump openly applauds tyrants who display human rights abuses. Even to the maximum, death!

Bentham Open journals claim to employ peer review;[5] however, the fact that a fake paper generated with SCIgen was accepted for publication, has cast doubt on this.[6][7][8] The Publisher contended that the paper was never published but that the acceptance was an attempt to catch the author who submitted the paper [9]Furthermore, the publisher is known for spamming scientists with invitations to become a member of the editorial boards of its journals.[10] Such unsolicited emails also had prompted the SCIgen paper submission to the journal.[7] The emails sent by Bentham also included invitations to the editorial board of subjects where the recipient had no expertise (and thus should not have been invited by any sound journal).[7] In consequence, some editors quit the collaboration with Bentham.[6][8]

In 2009, the Bentham Open Science journal The Open Chemical Physics Journal published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained "active nanothermite",[11] a well known 9/11 conspiracy theory. Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".[12]

In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall 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."[13] Beall has since added Bentham Open to his list of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers".[4]

In 2013, The Open Bioactive Compounds Journal was one of the journals that accepted an obviously bogus paper submitted as part of the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting.[14] It has since been discontinued.[15]

In a 2017 study of invitation spam by predatory publishers, Bentham Open was one of the most frequent invitation spammers.[16]

Evidently these shooters preferred AR15 styled weapons, and in fact, in most of the deadliest shootings of this decade.

You simply don't recognize truth, oralloy.

You merely keep repeating some obscure statement over and over again as though it meant something the first time, much less the 20th or 50th time. You do it in every single subject on these threads.

You're more than welcome. We know that assault-style weapons have been used as well. Better data would show if this were part of a trend.

But there must be a reason why these shooters would prefer these to handguns — or they'd use handguns. I believe it may be connected to the substantially increased firepower and their psychological allure.

I'm concerned how they use them.

Evidently these shooters preferred AR15 styled weapons, and in fact, in most of the deadliest shootings of this decade. Why?

Bentham Open journals claim to employ peer review;

A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself... Great!
ProfJones thu, 12/02/2010 - 9:36am
Farrer Griscom harrit nano-thermite thermite

As a Full Professor of Physics at BYU, I reviewed dozens of scientific papers as a peer-reviewer. I have reviewed papers since accepting early retirement from BYU in 2007. And I have published as author or co-author over fifty papers which have been subjected to peer-review. Based on my experience in the peer-review system, I can add that it is not the place of an author of a paper or even an editor to reveal the names of peer-reviewers, but it is precedented and generally acceptable in the scientific community for a peer-reviewer to disclose his/her OWN name and role in the review of an important paper. This is the case for a prominent reviewer of the Harrit, Farrer, et al. paper -- one of the reviewers discloses his name and further comments on our paper and his review of it here: http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energetic.html . The reviewer's name is Prof. David L. Griscom. Among his impressive credentials, Prof. Griscom is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and a Fellow of the AAAS. I quote a brief excerpt from his blog and encourage you to read all of it:

"II. The 2009 publication in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (TOCPJ) of a fabulous paper by Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review. Absolutely false! I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions. Still, some skeptical readers may ask how anyone can rate a scientific paper as “fabulous.” Well, I am the principal author of 109 papers (and a co-author of an additional 81) in peer-review journals. And have refereed a least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts. So you would be right in calling me an aficionado of articles published in scientific journals. And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! Apropos, twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty."

Prof. Griscom also addresses the reason why pieces of paper in the Towers would survive an explosive demolition (see his blog, answers to questions).

As one of the authors of this paper, I can say that Prof. Griscom's twelve pages of review were very well thought-out and required us to do considerable further work on the paper, which improved the final version significantly. This was one tough review, more challenging than any other review I have received, excepting perhaps peer-reviews of papers in Scientific American (1987) and Nature (1989) on which I was co-author. I should also add that I have never met Prof. Griscom personally and that I just learned of his blog disclosing himself as a peer-reviewer today (thanks to Dirk Gerhardt).

I wish to extend kudos to Prof. Griscom for thus speaking out in his blog. He has done some relevant things before; now it seems he has decided to speak out boldly. He strikes me as a solid and creative scientist who can contribute much to our effort. I am excited that he has spoken out in his blog. Now, as is common among scientists, I may not accept all his ideas (e.g., drone planes hitting the Towers); but he clearly distinguishes between his hypotheses --conjectures to be tested-- and hard physical evidence which has been scrutinized, peer-reviewed and published. That is also proper in science.

Welcome, Professor Griscom.

[EDIT: Link to Dr. Griscom's blog: http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/ LW]

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-02/peer-reviewer-active-thermitic-materials-paper-identifies-himself-great

Could we all avoid feeding the idiotic September 11th conspiracy obsession? There are plenty of other places for that, and we don't need to encourage the trashing of this thread. Thank you.

You simply don't recognize truth, oralloy. You merely keep repeating some obscure statement over and over again as though it meant something the first time, much less the 20th or 50th time. You do it in every single subject on these threads.