Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel

Embed this content in your HTML


Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog

Channel Description:

Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing

(Page 1) | 2 | 3 | .... | 541 | newer

    0 0

    The UC Berkeley Library maintains such a list here: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/scholarlycommunication/oa_fees.html

    0 0

    Thanks Jeffrey. :-)

    0 0

    Good stuff as usual Jeffrey. A lot of cred to JCR for detecting this and Hindawi for handling it. Unfortunately this type of quid pro quo scheme is probably behind more than a few journals ratings. Another step I would like to see is for the people behind this fraud to be disciplined by their academic institutions.

    0 0

    This is really bad news! They must stop collecting money for article publication!

    0 0

    [...] legit publisher, it’s one of those “open access” vanity journal things (see list here), and for a publisher wanting to print an essay of mine whose requirements include:  2. [...]

    0 0

    “We always thought that anatomy really didn’t vary much from country to country.” You are right but not stupidity and greed !!!!

    0 0

    Journal of Foreign Anatomy as opposed to Journal of Domestic Anatomy. I think I just got an idea for a title. I wonder… did they mean forensic anatomy?

    0 0

    Foreign psychology almost makes sense. Almost.

    0 0

    You will be charged USD50 for each paper. Not free of charge!!! They do not mention this in their website. But once your paper been accepted, they will ask you to make a payment (based in India)

    0 0

    It is unfortunate that in this case, the Scientific World Journal is penalized for the wrongdoing of certain editorial member of the Journal who published papers that excessively cited articles from Cell Transplantation. The strange thing is that more serious scientific frauds remain untouched by the current system. For instance, several articles are retracted even after a decade from several high impact journals for scientific fraud committed by individuals who were/are affiliated with prestigious institutions. There is no “impact” of retractions on these “high impact” journals nor is there any penalty for these individuals from their institutions or from funding bodies such as the NIH etc. Interestingly, it is customary for high powered people to dilute the gravity of the situation by writing a “note” to the journal from which these papers are retracted. There is no obvious apology or remorse expressed by the high impact journals per se. I am wondering whether the Thomson Reuters has any plan on addressing such blatant scientific frauds published in high impact journals at least in terms of not issuing impact factor.

    0 0

    I am having my University’s IT Dept. check that link. Thanks.

    0 0

    The problem with these new journals is that they offer too much for too little. They are not believable. In reality they do not have enough qualified, experienced reviewers to handle papers in all the fields being offered. Real journals have a long history of individual development by dedicated individuals, usually on a volunteer basis; they do not appear suddenly en masse. It is always good if a local academic society launches a journal and has members who can support it. One journal with a large support base, published by an organisation with a real address and real academic expertise. It is irresponsible for individuals to create large numbers of journals with no means to support them academically. The responsible approach would be to spend two years building up a team to support a single journal, then introducing the journal in graduated steps.

    0 0

    I agree with you.. new journals means new…every start up needs time , supports and a good team..cloud journals..a new initiative..for scholars..for developing as well as developed countries whose economy going down day by day…CJ will provide international quality with international standards..in very reasonable rate..i do not know why this blog owner deleted those news about open access which were published in the gardian UK..
    again i am giving that link for all scholars who will believe in the vision of CJ.. i request you to please do not delete this comments as well as these links also… must read the full stories…from oxford University,European Commission. these are 6 news.. must read….




    4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/jul/17/open-access-scientific-research

    5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/15/free-access-british-scientific-research

    6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/15/free-access-british-scientific-research

    0 0

    your deletion of my posts seems so much controversial..every time..its clear that your blog is supported by some publishers as well as supported for USA citizen’s only..you are a person who do not want something good for researcher and scholars who really want best support for research publication..and your deletion of my posts are also showing your mentality which is against India and Indian peoples.

    Best of luck



    0 0

    Dear Mohan,

    There are many long-established and serious academic journals in India that deserve greater support from inside India, from institutions, contributors, readers, editors, and translators. Rather than creating an infinity of new online-only journals, it might be better to move existing, historically-important print journals online with or without a print component, and to raise the profile of Indian research inside and outside India by building on the efforts that have already been made.

    As a Japan-based researcher, I am not sufficiently familiar with the academic world in India to understand why there is not more support for existing academic publications in your country.

    At risk of stealing attention from the SOA blog, I invite to you to comment further on these issues at the Research Co-op India, here:

    Best regards, Peter

    0 0

    Dear Mohan,

    Thanks for the links.

    In one of those articles, the writer mentions that Author Processing Charges:

    “British universities now pay around £200m a year in subscription fees to journal publishers, but under the new scheme, authors will pay “article processing charges” (APCs) to have their papers peer reviewed, edited and made freely available online. The typical APC is around £2,000 per article.”

    (cited from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/15/free-access-british-scientific-research)

    The Britisher planners hope APCs will decline with competition. As an author, I hope so too!

    Individuals and institutions can only justify paying such high charges if they can be sure that the journals do: (i) actually provide services, (ii) have high quality reviewers, (iii) have an established readership (i.e. a good reputation), and (iv) have stability and accountability.

    New journals have a natural barrier that they must cross, from merely offering (i) to actually providing the services (e.g. in-house copyediting, site maintenance, journal promotion, prompt correspondence with all parties involved, etc.), and then building up (ii-iv). The British plan to switch to a full open access but author pay system is possible for Britain because they have a huge number of well established journals with good reputations (not all of course!).

    Just as academics are rebelling against the high subscription fees charged by Springer and the like, academics will rebel against high APCs, if they can discover good journals with lower APCs.

    A new publisher cannot instantly build a reputation for dozens of new journals simultaneously, from zero. By offering too much, a new publisher debases its own effort, and creates doubt about all aspects of the effort, even if the effort is sincere.

    Sincerity is necessary but is not enough to succeed in the world of publishing!

    The present OAS blog is just a vanguard for quality control services that will help researchers find the best value for money publishers. One way or another, authors and readers need to know as much about who publishers are, and how they compare to other publishers. The Scopus citation index and other such measuring services can help, but do not give authors and readers the full story. A new journal with no citation record, but with transparently great support from great researchers and editors, could be the best deal for some people.

    How to effectively and fairly find and compare publishers is the elephant in the room of the open access movement. It is a problem that the present blog is attempting to address, but many people need to think about this problem.

    0 0

    Quelle surprise, it’s based in Lagos, Nigeria: http://whois.domaintools.com/manuscript-proofreading.org

    0 0

    Finding legit editing services in countries like Nigeria is actually not so easy. I have no doubt there are many professional academic editors across Africa, but as part of the publishing ecosystem they are not so visible as in the mainstream regions of English-based research.

    There is a real need for affordable, locally-based, services in Africa – so scams like this may be most annoying for researchers based in Nigeria itself.

    One goal of the Research Cooperative network I have established (http://researchcooperative.org) is to try and shine a light on the real editors and proofreaders in Africa and other regions where services are most needed and least available.

    0 0

    I just went through the website of The self-styled Global Institute for Scientific Information (GISI) and I instantly noticed endless irregularities, which made me conclude at a glance that the guys behind it must be dunces and asshole.

    0 0

    AuthorAID is another option for authors in developing countries who need help publishing and communicating their research; it is a “global online network that provides support, mentoring, resources, and training for researchers in developing countries” http://www.authoraid.info/. I’m a member.

(Page 1) | 2 | 3 | .... | 541 | newer