Thanks — I agree. This operation uses the name Europment, and it is just another brand for WSEAS. I strongly recommend that scholars NOT attend any of these conferences.
Comment on WSEAS and NAUN: Two Publishers (and Conference Organizers) to Avoid by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Cleve Smith
How about MDPI journals?
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
Excellent question; I can tell you that I am re-evaluating this publisher at this time for possible inclusion in my list. Please stand by.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Cleve Smith
MDPI journal ask for 500CHF publication fee. They also help people to correct English language and then ask for additional 250 CHF. They have scores of journals. It seems to be very profitable.
↧
Comment on More Questionable Scholarly Metrics are Emerging by Harvey Kane
Kind of reminds me of the explosion of boxing sanctioning bodies. Just who is the heavyweight champion?
↧
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Kohen
I believe, when a journal is indexed by Thomson Reuters or Scopus, authors should not worry about anything. The personal opinions have no intrinsic or extrinsic value. No one can set the rules for open access publishing. What is right or what is wrong? Just try to consider only two monopolistic entities i.e. in US, Thomson Reuters and in Europe, Scopus. Other than these, all the entities covered by Web of Knowledge also work fine.
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Jeffrey Beall
Please look up the word “fatuous.”
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Moses P. Adoga
Mr Beall is obviously right in certain cases. However, I’m beginning to think that his assessment is subjective with respect to certain publishers or journals.
One of the journals published by the publisher in question entitled ‘Nutrients’ (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients) has an impact factor of 2.072. I cross-checked in the Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports and discovered it is true. The journal is also indexed in all the major databases (the PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, etc). So, what criteria did Mr Beall use to have arrived at such a damning conclusion? Was it just the retraction case he mentioned? What about papers being retracted once in a while from leading journals like Nature, Science, etc, yet the journals will NEVER make it to Beall’s list? Mr Beall should not just wake up from sleep and start adding journals to “my list of questionable publishers”. Cheers
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Jeffrey Beall
There are so many logical fallacies in this that I don’t know where to start.
First, yes, I agree, the criteria I use are chiefly subjective. I’ve never claimed they were objective. I also mentioned in the post (did you actually read it?) that I knew some of the MDPI journals had impact factors. I don’t think you can make the argument that just because some of the major journals have occasional problems that it’s okay for MDPI to be low quality. If you are happy with MDPI, please submit all your papers there. Pay the CHF 1600 and enjoy the fact that your articles are published in one-word journals.
↧
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Mateo
In my humble opinion MDPI is a bogus publisher. They have published many plagiarized papers in the past and many papers with counterfeit experiments. They publish several papers per month, they find plagiarism and mistakes and then they retract them. The whole procedure is quite ridiculous. The upload PDF files and after some days they delete them without explanation. A typical blog of a non-scholar is more serious.
Furthermore, MDPI is totally bogus.
In the MDPI web site as it is today, they are bragging that they have teamed up with some important universities:
* 10 February 2014: Institutional Membership with the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
* 5 February 2014: Institutional Membership with the University of Zurich and the University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland
* 31 January 2014: Institutional Membership with the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)
All these are lies and bullshit. From time to time they send unsolicited emails that they are in the same team with some important universities.
This is, however, unacceptable, offensive, unethical, and quite unprofessional.
I know very well and I can sign that MDPI has underground routes of black money with several professors and several indexes.
Another example: In this paper:
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/7/2/804
they claim
Received: 14 December 2013; in revised form: 14 January 2014
If you calculate 15 days Christmas Holidays, it seems that
time between Received and Revised is 15 days.
It implies (as an average) that Review Time was 7.5 days and Time for Revised Version other 7.5 days.
Is it a real scientific journals with 7.5 days for review only?
MDPI is clearly a good marketing scheme for easy profit.
I also agree that MDPI is bogus and fake publishing industry. Vanity Press. Nothing more.
Greetings
Mateo
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Moses P. Adoga
First, I have never published in any of the journals. Second, what do you mean by “one-word journals”? Are Nature, Cell and Science two-word journals? They are also one-word journals! Will you include them in your list? I bet you won’t. CHF 1600 is too little compared to some open access journals (e.g BMC journals) that charge over $1000, and I bet you will not dare include them in your list. I am happy that you agree your criteria are subjective. So, as an experienced author yourself, you must follow criteria acceptable within the research community such as the ones I mentioned in my first post, otherwise your assessment risks loss of credibility. I know you don’t want that to happen. You’re doing a good job but you should follow conventional criteria. Not those that are subjective. Cheers
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Cesar Menor-Salvan
I see that the general opinion about MDPI is that is a substandard and questionable publisher to avoid. Again, my (only one) experience with MDPI was positive. But I begin to regret to publish there and, after the research of Jeffrey and the comments here, I will avoid to publish in MDPI hereafter. It would be terrible that a colleague think that my data or my research, obtained after a hard work, is questionable because it was published in a MDPI journal. Thanks to Jeffrey for his work. As someone said before, the real help for us as authors is to expose the apparently *serious* open access publishers, the real threat to authors, specially to those, as is my own case, who believe in the open access movement.
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by John
Based on the amount of spam that I receive from them (mostly calls for papers in special issues), the fact that their automated emails do not feature a “unsubscribe me” link, and the fact that I did not manage to be removed from their lists after several complaints, I would say that they are not a respectable publisher.
I don’t know how long they have been around, but most of their journals in my field (chemistry) were very recently created: see there for a full list, which you can sort by journal creation date. Their older journal, Molecules, has a less-than-stellar impact factor of 2.4. Its editorial board, apart from the occasional celebrity or two, is unremarkable.
As a conclusion: I think they surf on the popularity of open access journals, but I don’t consider them serious players.
↧
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by David
I agreed to be a special issue editor for an MDPI journal. My experience so far is good. They seem to have decent standards for review, rejecting clearly sub-standard papers. Mainstream publishers like Elsevier publish many questionable papers too that slip through the cracks of peer review. Also, it makes sense to mainly employ people in China where wages are lower. From the photo above it looks like there is office space upstairs in the buildings on that street (see the intercom panel next to the storefront). I really don’t think this publisher belongs with the more questionable ones on your list.
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Jeffrey Beall
Okay, help me out. Can you list three objective criteria that I can use to evaluate a journal that is less than a year old, criteria that I can apply across the board? If someone can come up with a better way to evaluate young journals, then I would be happy to consider it.
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by drhewang
Is it legitimate to translate “one of them” into “they”? Forgive my poor English.
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Jeffrey Beall
Yes, perfectly legitimate.
(Good point).
↧
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Jay
(1) As the idea of this post is largely come from a disputatious Chinese report, I think Beall doesn’t like to be involved in ; and I have to say that it is a little difficult for Beall to fully understand the puzzling situation in China ( for example, no one can establish a new journal unless be approved and get permission by the Chinese government, and a large proportion of Chinese scholarly journals are somewhat like “double dipping” if we use the language of OA ).
(2) MDPI is a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association ( OASPA); it is interesting to know the idea of OASPA menbers on this.
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Jinhai Gao
Both at the beginning and at the end of your article, you cited the publisher being a controversial figure in China as a main reason for your recommendation of avoiding MDPI. I think it is fair to say that you had been clearly misled by Fang haters. The only reason that Lin Shukun became a controversial figure in China is because yiming and Co. made it look like so, due to his association with Dr. Fang.
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Jeffrey Beall
Under what circumstances did he leave the University of Louisville? Not the Louisville in China, but the one in the U.S.
↧
