Yes, but it’s just one expletive … repeated a few times. :-)
Comment on Oxford on alert: predatory conference organisers are coming to town, or, Oxford beware: OMICS predators are coming to town by Jeff Shrager
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by SCOTT
What is wrong with Infinity Press, publisher of Journal of Studies in Social Sciences?
↧
Comment on Publisher Requires only 20% Original Content in Article Submissions by Dr. Sundararajan
The below comments were earlier posted by Prof. Emanuel S. Grant in Dec 2013. We are resending the same on behalf of Prof Grant and with his full knowledge, consent and permission as it was not posted previously.
——————————–
Mr Jeffrey Beall
UCD
Via Email
“I am an associate of GSTF, but am commenting in my capacity as an academic who has reviewed many journal and conference submissions. Academic conferences maybe viewed as external forums for critical review of ongoing/developing or nearing completion of research efforts. Internal review forums would be the group of involved researchers and immediate colleagues. Journals maybe seen as the repositories of perfected/completed works; they serve to chronicle works that have been attested to be complete authoritative statements of the topics covered. Journals should never be a forum for work that has not been critiqued, towards achieving that state of being complete and authoritative. If one accepts that proposition then the question is just how much content should be acceptable as original (unpublished in any other forum). Further, the phrase “original content” does not imply that the rest of the content is simply source from other researchers’/authors’ works; the entire content (with exception of related and background material) has to be that of the submitting authors. The “…at least twenty percent” required by GSTF seems to be a reasonable baseline, as it ensures that there is enough unpublished content to protect publishers’ ownership rights, and be complete and authoritative on the subject.
The rest of your blog content on GSTF seems to be highly misleading and petty personal assaults on the GSTF organization and personnel. The site block of GSTF by your institution’s Internet security tool has nothing to do with the activities of GSTF. While your lack of technical knowledge on the matter is excusable, your inability to make reasonable or logical conclusion cannot be excused. Another failure of drawing logical conclusion is your assertion that you were “pressured” “…to remove the publisher [GSTF] from my list”. If “…GSTF was successful in a legal action against” you then you were not pressured; you were WRONG!
Your insinuation of some kind of nefarious act on the part of GSTF’s principal’s wife and you being “pressured” into some action, only belies your weakness of character, and argument on the subject. The “friend of a friend” was probably acting in your best interest (a libelous lawsuit) when he/she advised you to remove your initial mal-intended posting. The cause to which you have self-appointed yourself is a needed one, but the manner in which you have conducted yourself, with respect to GSTF undermines a noble effort. On the outset you state “In my opinion, no legitimate publisher would ever make such a statement or allow so much unoriginal content to be published as if it were new in their journals.”, and that is exactly what it is; your opinion, not a statement of authority or fact! “
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof Emanuel S. Grant, Ph.D.
↧
Comment on Publisher Requires only 20% Original Content in Article Submissions by Dr. Sundararajan
The below comments were earlier posted by Professor the Hon Stephen Martin in Dec 2013. We are resending the same on behalf of Professor the Hon Stephen Martin and with his full knowledge, consent and permission as it was not posted previously.
———————————
Mr Jeffrey Beall
UCD
Via Email
I am writing to you with respect to your comments on your blog that would appear to impugn my association with Global Science and Technology Forum (GSTF).
I would like to put it on record that I have been associated with Dr Anton Ravindran and GSTF even before its inception. My current association is in the capacity of member of the Governing Board, along with a number of highly qualified and reputable academics. I wish to categorically state that I have no issue with GSTF’s integrity and the manner in which they conduct themselves.
As such, I would ask that you immediately remove the comments about me on your blog as the innuendo implied is both inappropriate and misleading to any reader.
You may wish to note that I am in complete agreement with Professor Emanuel Grant’s comments to you and have read the correspondence between yourself and Dr Sundar.
Should you not agree to remove any reference to me an appropriate alternative would be to post this email directly on your blog.
If your intentions and objectives are genuine, professional and scholarly as you claim, then it should be done in a manner exhibiting objectivity and transparency foremost, else your blog is a mockery both to yourself and any academic institution you may be associated with. Your blog in its present form is a platform for petty, personal and vindictive comments under a self-assumed guise of an authority for scholarly commentary.
Your immediate attention to this matter is requested.
Professor the Hon Stephen Martin
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by Kalman Kalotay
Well, the link to alleged travel guides proves that the English of Akadémiai Kiadó needs to be improved if they wish not to be misunderstood. Having read the Hungarian language description of the items you refer to, one realizes that these are in fact all dictionaries for travelers, not travel guides. It sounds by the way more logical to me because Akadémiai Kiadó has a tradition of producing dictionaries of all sizes. In turn, it would have surprised me if such a post-transition academic publisher would have engaged in the production of popular items such as travel guides.
As for your second sentence on the negative consequences of softness on plagiarism, I fully agree with you. Unfortunately Hungary is a country whose former President had to resign (in 2012) because of … plagiarism.
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
Well, for one, it’s based in Australia (or claims to be), but it appears almost no Australians want to publish in its journals — the authors are all from abroad. Also, it has broad, unoriginal journals with titles like “Journal of Studies in Social Sciences.” The world does not need another questionable publisher with hackneyed journals. I think researchers should find better venues for their work than this one. From searching your email, I see your name is Oziengbe Scott Aigheyisi and you are in Nigeria. Did you start up this publisher? And it’s really based in Nigeria, no? Why aren’t you honest about this?
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by Peter B
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Beall,
Just a note regarding the “wannabe” status of the Akadémiai Kiadó: funded in 1828, partly owned by the Hungarian Academy of Science, partly by Wolters Kluwer. Publishes ~ 60 journals (http://akkrt.hu/9/journals/), more than 20 with impact factor.
Do you also consider the Nature Group or the PNAS as wannabe publishers because plagiarism happened at them? They have investigated and retracted the articles: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a/box/2.html
I’m quite sure, the Editor-in-Chief and the publisher will investigate the issue, which will take some time, and not the number of days what really matters here (“I reported the plagiarism on Saturday; today is Thursday”). What matters is the result and the consequence.
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by Jeffrey Beall
Wrong — the editor only agreed to do a bona fide investigation after the apparent plagiarism was published in a blog post. I’m not talking about Nature Publishing Group (nice try to deflect) here, I’m talking about an academic society that is on a downward trajectory that has an editor that appears to be indifferent to plagiarism.
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by Carla
I too found the direct lifting of paragraphs from the Dahlin paper, without ANY attribution. There is no way that any publisher could doubt that it is plagiarism.
↧
↧
Comment on Journal Indexing: What it is, and What it’s Not by Intenational Journal of Research
Thanks for sharing the useful information. We will take care of these information in our journal.
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Philipe
The new web site of the journal is :
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by erik
Well, this journal in TR indexing:
http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=1097-8135
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by Albert Noel
It is bad. According to the academic writing rules, only definitions can be copied word by word, with quotation marks and exact page number of article. Good writers even change the definitions in their own words. There should be a difference between pirates and researchers. What pirates do in sea authors are doing in academic sea.
↧
↧
Comment on Article in Questionable Journal Claims Handheld Hepatitis C Detector is Effective by nerkn
If this was not open access you cant show it’s contents. Difference between open access and also I found elsevier link http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0168-8278/PIIS0168827813611757.pdf that they also published as poster.
↧
Comment on Other pages by Jeffrey Beall
I haven’t analyzed this — I limit my work to scholarly open-access journals.
↧
Comment on Icelandic Journal Latest Victim of Journal Hijacking by Silv
OK Jeffrey, thank you for your post, all my colleagues will find out about this problem. Good luck!
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Liam Mac Liam
Yes, this is an interesting case: JCR indexed by Thomson 2012 and the publisher does look dodgy.
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Tess
Thank you very much for taking the time out to respond to my inquiry. I do appreciate it. I would certainly be visiting this site more often. Regards
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by Lisa
This debate is majorly focused/critics to the editor, which is painful, it is a matter of reviewer who evaluate the paper, and if they think the paper is suitable for publication, then why this debate is ongoing, think what you are talking?
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by Ashley Hastings
Reading some of these recent comments, I am starting to wonder whether the battle to preserve appropriate standards of scholarship has already been lost. It appears that some of those offering comments have little understanding or experience when it comes to scholarly writing.
There are many times when verbatim quotations would be cumbersome. Writers often need to extract the gist of cited material and rephrase it in terms that are more relevant to their purposes.
I have never heard of the rule limiting quotations to definitions. Sometimes it is desirable to quote short passages of text, and this does not require permission unless the quoted material is substantial.
Reviewers make recommendations, but editors make decisions and have the ultimate responsibility for upholding legal and scholarly standards in their journals.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
