Dear Sir,
Please check out the following from a single publisher:
Predatory List
1. http://theglobaljournals.com/paripex/
2. http://theglobaljournals.com/ijsr
3.http://www.theglobaljournals.com/ijar
4. http://theglobaljournals.com/gra
Waiting for your views….
Comment on Appeals by Abhishek Rai
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
That publisher, “The Global Journals,” is on my list of questionable publishers. I recommend against submitting papers to its journals.
This publisher is particularly dangerous because it claims its journals have impact factors when in fact they do not.
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by Brent
As Nils (and Carla) noted above, the paper clearly contains plagiarism. It includes verbatim sections from a paper by Dahlin (http://garrido.pe/lecturasydocumentos/DAHLIN%20(2008)%20the%20impact%20of%20education%20on%20eco%20growth.pdf) without attribution. Specifically, the portion starting on the bottom of page 2189 (after the “i.e.”) is directly from the Dahlin paper (starting on page 9). Dahlin isn’t cited anywhere, nor is Wagstaff, who is Dahlin’s source on the Mincerian equation.
Interestingly, and unsurprisingly, they did a poor job of copying the equation — converting tau’s to t’s in the first equation, but not the second, and then continuing to refer to tau in the following paragraph. They also messed up the second summation in the first equation, having it start with T = t-1, instead of t = s+1. It’s understandable how a reviewer might miss the mistake in the equation around the t-1 vs. s+1, but the capital T is completely unused and unreferenced, so that ought to have been picked up.
The long passages quoted verbatim from other papers without quotes, but cited, might be forgivable (although it’s still pretty sketchy); however, the outright copying from Dahlin without citation is plagiarism, pure and simple.
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by West
I appreciate the information provided by this site and have used it to make publishing decisions. However, this post has the feel of gotcha journalism.
↧
Comment on Have I Discovered the Source of the Hijacked Journals? by mohhamad
This journal is not hijacked, and I checked its base and it is true.
↧
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by Thiyagu Nagaraj
Professor Jeffrey Beall, We respect you but you never understand this. We are not interested in earning money professor. You are please join with us. we will good one to the world and also we are properly get registered. with regards thiyagu – Directory of Journal quality factor
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by Liam Mac Liam
The link to the quality factor report on the DJQF site doesn’t seem to be working:
http://www.qualityfactor.org/report.html
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by tauseef ahmad
sir , i had already submitted the paper , but i was not knowing the fact, Don’t we have any laws so that these can be banned, for cheating scholars, academicians and researchers. what you suggest me further to do?
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
The laws vary by country, but in most cases there are no laws against predatory publishing.
↧
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by Thiyagu Nagaraj
Professor Liam Mac Liam, Please understand that we have started DJQF on 2014 and our calculating metric will be published on June’2014 and will include in that page (http://www.qualityfactor.org/report.html). So, really sorry for the inconvenience. Please check after July’2014 page will be included.
↧
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by More Than 50 Shades of Gray | The Wildlife Society News
[…] 304 journals were not just randomly drawn: Bohannon got them from two sources. One was Beall’s List, published by Jeffrey Beall, a library scientist at the University of Colorado-Denver. Today it […]
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by More Than 50 Shades of Gray | The Wildlife Society News
[…] Today it lists 477 of what Beall calls “questionable” open-access publishers, and includes criteria for determining “predatory” publishers. Bohannon’s other source was the comprehensive […]
↧
Comment on New Madras-Based Publisher is a Laugh a Minute by Leslie
Just by point of fact, Dr. James Watson is still alive. A friend of mine recently met him and his wife at a birthday party in New York City.
↧
↧
Comment on Other pages by LAOcampo
Dear Sir,
I would just like to take some of your time to have a look on the publisher Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science (http://www.iaesjournal.com/). This publisher has a lot of journals on its portfolio. One of its journals, the International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (http://section.iaesonline.com/index.php/IJIEM) sounds alarming for me with reference to your list of criteria of bogus journals. However, this journal is indexed in Scopus since 2012. Thanks.
↧
Comment on Other pages by Jeffrey Beall
This publisher does not meet the criteria for being a predatory publisher, in my opinion.
↧
Comment on Researchers Find “Naming Of Allah” Prevents Certain Histological Changes in Slaughtered Broilers by Rob Labruyère
Holy chicken!
↧
Comment on Researchers Find “Naming Of Allah” Prevents Certain Histological Changes in Slaughtered Broilers by Pwaveno H. Bamaiyi
hahahahahaha…is this science or a comedy? Can we know the mechanism of action of the name? Soon another article will also say naming of Budha prevents certain histological changes, etc. Histological changes are influenced by many factors and in a study like this if the researchers are muslims the chances of bias will be very high and so the results will not be reliable. I will take this study serious if it was somebody like Mr Beall that carried out the research or some neutral scientist. I am beginning to wonder how and why International Journal of Poultry Science published such a paper!
↧
↧
Comment on Researchers Find “Naming Of Allah” Prevents Certain Histological Changes in Slaughtered Broilers by Yurii
Is there a dose dependency? Does the extent of changes depend on the number of times the name of Allah was mentioned? What kind of negative and positive controls were used? Is naming Iblis or Shayṭan reverse the observed changes?
↧
Comment on Researchers Find “Naming Of Allah” Prevents Certain Histological Changes in Slaughtered Broilers by Jurgen Ziesmann
The most amazing part of the whole paper is its statistics section … that is … there is none whatsoever. You just have to trust the researchers. An amazing example of non existing peer review.
↧
Comment on Researchers Find “Naming Of Allah” Prevents Certain Histological Changes in Slaughtered Broilers by Jurgen Ziesmann
To answer your questions 1.) Repeating the experiments and come to a different outcome … if you are not muslim, then here you have the reason why it did not work, as God knows you and does not respond to empty words … however if you are muslim it may cost you your life, as it shows that you are just faking your faith, otherwise God would have responded. As you only can lose, in either case you should reproduce it the way it has been done … select and chose your examples and make a statement without any basis exactly like this published “study”. 2.) Yes it is. I am absolutley in favor of testing any question a person has with scientific methods. Christians have tried to investigate if prayer for sick people works. I am not at all in favor for “censorship” of what can be asked. If the effectiveness of homeopatic medicines can be investigated, then also if religious rites change anything. I am against censorship and thought control.
3.) Yes, sholarly journals are a venue to publish the outcome of even such questions. However, the research done must be based on scientific standards. And here is the mistake of the paper … the research has been done and described in the most unscientific way possible. Peer review has not happened. Scientific standards like double blind testing and statistical analysis completely omitted. This manuscript should have been rejected by any journal that claims to be scholarly based on lack of follwing basic scientific standards. However, if scientific standards are followed, all questions should be allowed and it also should be possible to publish results. We cannot afford an institution of “scientific inquisition” – the freedom to think what you want to think and the freedom to investigate what you want to investigate is a much to high value.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
