Comments for Scholarly Open Access

we see the humor clearly
such scandal is every where, and mostly in the west, actually we learnt some of these stuff from the west

There are other issues. I naively got a thesis ready for submission to a new journal in music that GSTF were doing – they were charging me $300 for publishing, plus 5% ‘for paypal administration costs’. Paypal’s admin rates max out at 3%, if there needed to be any more proof of their seediness.

Dear Jeffrey Beall,

Thankyou for your wonderful work in naming and shaming these destructive publishers and journals.

Just wondering, since you mentioned them separately in another post but I’m not seeing them on this list – are you going to include the Global Science and Technology Forum (GSTF) based in Singapore? I was recently deluded into submitting a paper to one of their journals and asked for $300 to publish (previously not mentioned in any of their conditions), and their submission process was a complete mess. I’m happy to provide email proof if it would help others to steer clear and not be burned like I was.

Cheers!

I agree with Alex. A metric needs to be specific for a particular field of research and particular type of research. All scientific studies cannot be evaluated on the same scale.

Apparently a case of multiple reincarnation: If you look up the “important papers” written by the “CEO” Adams, you will find they have been written by several authors with different names (in ISR journals).

l just googled taxonomy journals and there a number of them.

no, i am not agree with you IIFS is providing quality based impact factor. how can u say this. Every organization has its own policies of evaluation…

I recommend the use of the below-linked paper template for such meetings:

(WARNING: The linked PDF contains an expletive.)

http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf

OMICS again? what do these guys benefit from organizing fake conferences?I wish to know to avoid falling in that trap one day

how could they organise a “conference ” without the University being aware of it !!!!!

I also found them appended after some of the journals. http://www.gjournals.org/Journals.html

i think that your motive is to target Indian impact factor organizations and journals……

i think you have said lot about Indian journals and impact factor organizations. You think they are bad and targeting American journals and impact factor organizations and hindering their growth.

There is a journal with this title published by Bowen Publishing. This publisher is on my list, so I recommend that you find a better journal.

I sometimes wonder if these journal sites have been created expressly to take control of research efforts in the main target country (in this case, it is likely to be India).

In this newly hatched conspiracy theory, I propose that such sites do not emanate from India, but from the moon, where a lost colony of Indian researchers (whose arrival predates the Sputnik) is attempting to gain control of the Indian scientific community in order to engineer a rescue mission.

[no applause expected for this attempt at humour, but really, how do we know where these sites come from?]

Thank you for information but what is your criteria for terming some of the publishers as questionable? I have read some of their works and they seem ok. Is it on a case by case or is it a blanket condemnation that they are questionable?

Paul, please see the established criteria here: http://wp.me/p280Ch-g5 Let me know if you have any questions.

Searching on the Web gives quite a few hits with UJRI impact factor values and almost all seem to come from Greener Journal publications.

How about Skynet?

The problem identified here may be common to many journals.

The policing of plagiarism and duplication is the responsibility of the editors, and if the editors don’t do anything then plagiarism and duplications can remain in the literature. (It would seem that many publishers aren’t using anti-plagiarism software as a cross check.)

An interesting example is provided by Shepard et al. (2013, DOI 10.1007/s11069-012-0368-1), who identified a clear example of duplication (“the analysis, text and figures are basically a reproduction of a comment that he has provided previously to a completely different study”). While Shepard et al. clearly flagged the duplicated comments and the editors of the journals (published by Springer and Elsevier) must be aware of the duplication, the relevant publications by Boretti remain in the literature.

Latest Images