Comments for Scholarly Open Access

The the mentioned journal ( http://naukpublication.org/index.php/NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNG-SCHWEIZ ) isn’t fake. I checked it by some trusted resources.

This is yet another example of the harm done by predatory journals. I’m going to assume the authors were honest in their intentions. Legitimate peer review almost certainly would have rejected this article, but would have provided the authors suggestions for testing their hypothesis in a more rigorous manner. Instead, this journal took their money and let the authors get ridiculed.

Your link goes to the hijacked version. There is also the original and authentic version. What are your “trusted resources”?

Reblogged this on <a href="http://bsulis.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/" rel="nofollow">Benguet State University Library & Information Services</a> and commented: A Warning to our researchers who want to upload!

There seems to be more and more such low quality conferences nowdays.

if it is fake so where is original version?

The original version is print only.

This article raises several questions:

1. Are the results reproducible? If not, what are the implications for scientists who repeat the research and get contradictory findings?
– I am with Jurgen on that

2. Is it a good idea to bring religion into scientific research?
– There will be always somebody who will do that. Get the conclusion first from (insert the religious textbook here), then design and experiment to produce results to support their preconceived conclusions.

3. Are scholarly journals a proper venue for such research?
– It depends on what is considered science (the meaning of the word IS is).

I completely agree with Jurgen.
To Q2 and Q3 the answer should be a resounding “yes”! Of course science should be allowed to investigate any claim that religion makes that lends itself to being tested. There are awfully few of them as it is, and even in this case I don’t think any statement in the Bible or Quran has much to say a priori about congestion in liver and pectoral muscles. But at least these authors now seem to be forwarding the testable hypothesis that there is a difference. We also have to consider the alternate hypothesis that chickens care about whether and how they are talked to, however, so the control condition leaves something to be desired. Also, whether such research should be funded from public resources is another question that I would be more inclined to answer negatively.
The answer to Q1 is about as obvious as that to “does water burn at room temperature?”. Of course I would not forbid the question to be considered, but in the absence of “extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims” I would not spoil an otherwise okay blog with it.

And related “A Malaysian shaman – or “Bomoh” – wielding coconuts and bamboo binoculars to locate missing flight MH370, has triggered a mixture of outrage and embarrassment from the country’s social media users.” (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-26564562)

Please be careful of JAERD! I did a mistake by sending my article there!!! I sent my article there in 2011 and I paid $300. Then they ask me to pay again $600 today.. This is a kind of [...] act!

Respected all,

any one have the mail id of the editor Prof.Dr. M. J. Daffé of pensee journal , because i already did my payment for publication and all the information but till now i am not any confirmation from them so please give me the mail id of the editor in chief so i will directly contact to them.

Dear Prof. Beall,

What a great job you did! I would like also to ask your opinion regarding this publisher: Global Science Research Journal (http://globalscienceresearchjournals.org/).

I have no connection at all with the publisher. I received several emails from it, invite me to submit manuscript. But, their emails came to spam folder.

Thank you very much.

http://southasiajournal.net/

Can you please confirm is it predatory journal or not

I’ve added Global Science Research Journals to my list.
This is a new brand created by International Scholars Journals. They’ve copied a lot of content from their journals into the journals in the new brand.
The new brand has launched with around 130 journals, and I recommend against submitting to all of them.

Oh no, another journal using a blog platform as its publishing platform.
This seems mostly to be a popular journal rather than a scholarly journal. It also appears that they sell print subscriptions, and that these contain more content than the online version. I don’t want to add this journal to my list at this time. It’s really more of a magazine.

[…] line on a CV. But many of these have poor editorial control and may even lack peer review (see here for a list of questionable publishers, and here for stand-alone journals). We use largely […]

[…] control and may even lack peer review (see here for a list of questionable publishers, and here for stand-alone journals). We use largely meaningless (or easily-manipulated) metrics, like […]

I was just checking back on this issue and note that OASPA has taken action against the journals identified in the sting.
http://oaspa.org/oaspas-second-statement-following-the-article-in-science-entitled-whos-afraid-of-peer-review/#more-1614

I also came across Phil Davis’ comment that
“Bohannon reports that Beall was good at spotting publishers with poor quality control (82% of publishers on his list accepted the manuscript). That means that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a ”potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher” on appearances alone.”
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/10/04/open-access-sting-reveals-deception-missed-opportunities/

Jeffrey, I wonder have you responded to this somewhere? It would appear to be a pretty fundamental issue.

Latest Images