Thanks for the reply, Jeffrey. I didn’t realize this was not the actual page of the list.
Comment on Misleading Metrics: A New List on This Blog by RMS
↧
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by Alex SL
This is a good addition to the site but I am wondering about criteria 2, 3 and 5 because they also apply to Thompson Reuters. And yes, correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to include criterion 3.
As long as more journals have themselves added to Web of Science each year, <a href="http://phylobotanist.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/inflation-in-citation-metrics.html" rel="nofollow">it is a logical necessity that most scores go up</a> even if the actual number of citations doesn't change, for the simple reason that only citations in those journals that are part of the list are counted to calculate the scores for the journals on the list. There is no cheating involved, it is just the mechanics of how the scores are calculated, and they will stop increasing once the number of journals on the list plateaus.
It is thus hard to use this criterion to identify predatory ranking providers.
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics: A New List on This Blog by Jeremy
Hindawi is a fake bogus publishing house. Can you please include it in your list, sir?
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics: A New List on This Blog by Jeffrey Beall
I disagree.
Hindawi is NOT on my list.
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics: A New List on This Blog by Xion yuen
I object to your statement that: “The journal does not have an authentic impact factor assigned by Thomson Reuters.”
All companies are bogus, including Thomson Reuters. You are continuously doing the cheap publicity of Thompson Reuters and trying to prove that all others are fake. No impact factor is necessary for any research journal. I found that your blog is of very low standard.
↧
↧
Comment on Greedy Indian Publisher Charges Authors and Readers, Requires Copyright Transfer by Xion yuen
What is wrong if they are charging a small amount for publication of the paper?
↧
Comment on Greedy Indian Publisher Charges Authors and Readers, Requires Copyright Transfer by Jeffrey Beall
If you want to pay to submit a paper to a publisher that only makes its articles available through subscriptions, that lies by saying all universities have access, and that takes your copyright, go ahead.
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics: A New List on This Blog by Jeffrey Beall
You missed the point. The journal was trying to mislead people to think that it had a real impact factor, that is, one assigned by Thomson Reuters. In fact, it does not. This conversation is not about the validity of TR; it’s about deceiving people.
“All companies are bogus.” That’s really profound, and I encourage you to pursue your thesis — in an open-access journal with no impact factor, of course.
And, hopefully, since you found that my “blog is of very low standard” you won’t be coming round here no more.
Or, are you one of Lin’s lackeys, sent here to harass?
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by ‘History Research’: scam/vanity publishing? | BlauBlog
[…] quick Google search reveals lots of academics worrying about this publisher: see here (Scholarly Open Access’s watch list) and here (Brian Leiter’s philosophy […]
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by sumanth
Thank you for your time and the informative reply.
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics: A New List on This Blog by Jeffrey Beall
It looks very low quality. I have added it to my backlog. There are about ten new journals like this appearing from India each week, and unfortunately, I no longer have the time to analyze them all.
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics: A New List on This Blog by Bill White
Yes, misleading metrics, indeed, including the traditional impact factor itself!
Again, see a recent paper about it here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-014-9517-0
Why there should be an impact factor for a journal or for an author?
Unfortunately, classification of everything (including women and men) is one of the drawbacks of the capitalist system to make everything for profit; we classify journals and people in term of profit and money!
We classify journals, even if subjectively, it does not matter, because the ends justify the means!
I decided not to submit to any journal with impact factor!
Some of the so-called scientists are closed minded and insist on the impact factor despite its innumerable vices.
↧
Comment on New Madras-Based Publisher is a Laugh a Minute by Mark
Oh, and let’s not forget their logo, which is royalty-free clip art:
http://www.clipartof.com/portfolio/seamartini/illustration/blue-quill-pen-and-open-book-1146282.html
↧
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by A Guide to Looking Smart on the Internet: How to Find and Evaluate Online Information | Skepti-Forum
[…] Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers […]
↧
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by A Guide to Looking Smart on the Internet: How to Find and Evaluate Online Information | Skepti-Forum
[…] Beall’s List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers […]
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Wayne Dawson
Hmm, it seems about the time this came out, I was finishing up as a guest editor with the journal Entropy. I certainly tried to live up to the job and took a very active roll in the reviewing process to be sure I knew what I was deciding about in the light of the reviewer’s comments. To the best of my understanding, my decisions were fair. It certainly took at least a couple months in many cases. These are the things I can say for myself on this matter.
↧
Comment on Under Pressure, MDPI Tries to Clean House, Retracts Paper by Wayne Dawson
Admittedly, a key word search would have shown MathSciNet, but that can be for more prosaic reasons that it was missed. The editor does acknowledge the presence of the 2005 information.
↧
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics: A New List on This Blog by tekija
Today got a mail from http://www.peertechz.com/index
Not on the list – as new ones are literally popping up quicker than one can evaluate them, a list of journals that have passed you scrutiny is becoming useful: to spot the ones that are not evaluated at all.
“Authors if they want to suggest the reviewers from their prominent colleagues for review processing, editorial office have been accept them.”
↧
Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Nica
I perfectly agree with Dan.
First of all, it can be agreed with that LAP is neither Oxford University Publishing, nor Harvard & Co. and we all know and we knew before signing the rights and conditions of the Agreeent with them that what it has been written is “original” (as well as that there won´t have been a peer – review). Now I would like to ask to the audience here: what does make a book to be a “good” one? to be published by Harvard & Co. just because they are worldwide known? Because of a peer-review? I wrote a book on EULEX – KOSOVO, and recently published with them, which I consider to be worth more than Oxford and Harvard University Press & Co. The issue of the peer – review I do not think is a guarantee against a worth – work. I mean, yes it can be a guarantee against plagiarsim in technical terms, but I am really sorry a TRUE WRITER and RESEARCHER like me would in NO WAY copy & paste!!!!! and so I think all the others like me as well would never do that!!! Additionally, in my last years I read books published by Oxford & co. by VERY KNOWN academics and I found not only grammar errors, orthographic errors and of style etc…but no really a contribution to KNOWLEDGE & RESEARCH. Good Peer-Reviewed!!! SO WHAT? Please let´s avoid “clichés”. I have really enough of them. This world has too much of them.
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Wayne Dawson
I agree that the implications of the article are surely misleading. I can hardly think that sugar is benign. However, the graph itself might be informative in the sense that consumption has probably largely shifted to processed foods that often have trans-fats and possibly other additives. Excessive consumption of meat may also be not particular helpful in a diet. The authors should have investigated why a little more assiduously.
At any rate an editor should resist using a public journal as a private platform to promulgate his/her own particular slant on things without the full agreement of the editorial board.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
