[…] sans les faire expertiser par des scientifiques. Ces éditeurs font même l’objet d’une liste noire disponible en […]
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by L’open access nuit-il à la qualité scientifique ? | L'Alambic numérique
↧
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by Revues « prédatrices » : un danger pour les chercheurs ! | Archives Ouvertes
[…] Pour plus d’informations sur les signes qui doivent alerter, rendez-vous sur ce site. […]
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by shingirai sikomwe
thank you Jeffrey , kindly assist me why IISTE is regarded as dubious. I had three papers accepted, they claim to have good impact factor and referenced in a number of publishers
↧
Comment on Researchers Find “Naming Of Allah” Prevents Certain Histological Changes in Slaughtered Broilers by Non
Force!!!! show me its source. hahahah
↧
Comment on Two “Institutes” That Want Your Money by Michael Brown
An interesting post on a Macrothink journal at Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/24/entomologist-surprised-to-find-name-on-now-retracted-paper-alleging-fossils-oppose-darwins-theory-of-evolution
↧
↧
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Jurnal yang Perlu Dipertimbangkan untuk Kenaikan Pangkat/Jabatan Dosen | SISPEG UNIKAMA
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by EGPF
I have published two papers at Psyche, from Hindawi. I will tell of my experience here.
Psyche was a very reputable journal in past decades, especially among researchers working with social insects. Hindawi decided to revive this journal, and spread a good marketing about it, while managing to amass a good list of reputed editors from the field. Also they were good enough to include in their website .pdfs to all papers by Psyche from the old days, all available for free. I thus decided to publish two relevant papers in it as it looked like a very promising growing, open-acces journal. I was quite satisfied with the quality of peer-review, and I guess I got reviews from experienced peers in my field. I must mention, however, that they asked me for a list of prospective reviewers, and I do not like this practice by principle.
Upon publication problems started to show: there is no editor in chief or handling editor, thus formatting and proofs are made by a series of secretaries with weird names, each at a time, and they kept asking unusual demands on file formats and file names, while including many typos and mistakes in the proofs. This problem hit me when publishing both papers. There was no responsible editor to complain about this, or asking for guidance, only several non-scientist secretaries.
Eventually I managed to publish each paper free of errors, and final quality was good, easy to find, and open-access.
However I must say that my papers did not make the expected impact, suggesting that readers do not really read them or take them seriously enough. I am not sure about the reasons, but maybe because it is an open-access publisher.
After many years since its re-inauguration, Psyche still does not have an impact factor. In the endpoint, I feel publishing at Psyche from Hindawi was not a good choice.
↧
Comment on Did FWS Officials Use a Predatory Journal to Publish Questionable Science? by Carla
The Union of Concerned Scientists blog has a good, thorough reporting of this including information on two investigations into the scientific integrity of the senior officials involved. http://bit.ly/1eKciF8
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Nica
Hi Jeffrey,
I read this comment of you right now and since I have already had a bad experience with LAP – Lambert Academic Publishing (Germany), I thank you for your warning. Just one question: in a few words, what does make this Journal not deserving for papers? I may know the answers, but I would like to know the details.
↧
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Jeffrey Beall
You are indeed missing a lot of details, for this is not a journal at all.
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Nica
Thanks a lot you for your straight reply. One more suggestion back to LAP. I submitted – unfortunately and naively – a real manuscript of almost 400 pages, and I discovered a few days ago about them. I am keeping writing that I do not want them to keep publishing it, but no answer. What would happen if I submit the same manuscript to a real publisher? It may sound crazy, but this thing is making me mad, and if they do not answer, it seems I have no chance….
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Jeffrey Beall
Did you transfer copyright to them already? This may have been done clearly or in a sneaky way (i.e., via a “click through” license.) If you have already transferred your copyright, you are in a very difficult situation, that is, if you want out of the contract. It may be too late; you may need to consider getting a lawyer.
If you submit the same manuscript to a real publisher, they will probably ask you if you own the copyright on the work and if you have submitted it elsewhere. You need to provide honest answers to these questions if they are asked or you will be in deeper trouble.
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Nica
Dear Jeffrey,
thank you for your extensive explanation. Unfortunately, yes (click stuff) and the bad thing is also that I have my memory, but not the contract I signed with them, because was all online and since it was my first time of a book publication, I was naïve about even copy & paste it in word. And, it is true that I signed the “contract” by proving that everything I wrote was original, but me I know myself, and I was not aware they publish Wikipedia stuff…
↧
↧
Comment on Did FWS Officials Use a Predatory Journal to Publish Questionable Science? by Jill M
The reporting on the UCS blog states that the article was supposedly retracted by FWS, but it still appears on the Journal’s website with no mention of retraction. Since the FWS managers were found to have engaged in misconduct, is there any information whether the authors from U. of Oklahoma have also been disciplined? This appears to be more than just a case of publishing in a predatory journal.
↧
Comment on Did FWS Officials Use a Predatory Journal to Publish Questionable Science? by Jeffrey Beall
Only a publisher can retract a published paper. An author can request that it be retracted, but the actual retraction is the function of the journal/publisher. Right everyone? Therefore, the Fish and Wildlife Service cannot properly say it has retracted the article. It may have requested the article’s retraction.
I have no information about the OU authors being disciplined. Also, let’s not minimize the malevolence of using a predatory journal to promote a scientific point. That’s really what my blog post is about, not the purported bad science.
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics: A New List on This Blog by Bill White
Hah!
Did you really know what the impact factor really means?
Did you really read, and grasp the information you read in the article above, about the impact factor?
Search google annd pubmed about the distortion about the impact factor.
Also, what a citation does mean?
X cites Y cites Z cites A cites C cites D cites E, Cites X,…bla bla bla, and then? What else? What then? If someone is cited 1000 times, what does this mean?
It is the human EGO, which looks for some recognition in any form!
Citation is just for citation!
True and useful Science is that science resulting in concrete patent! All the citation and so, are without real usefulness.
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Nica
Hi Jeffrey,
sorry for bothering you again. I´ve just found this online
http://www.research.swinburne.edu.au/researchers/resources/lap-publishing/#q1
7. Will I retain the copyright to my work?
If you publish your work with LAP Lambert, they will retain 20% of the copyright. Hence, if you want to publish your work elsewhere (e.g. in academic journals) you need to be cautious of this in order not to infringe copyright restrictions.
Thus, if I well understood they will keep 20% & me the rest. But how can I not infringe copyright restrictions with % ?
I mean what at the end of the day I can publish elsewhere?
Many thanks
↧
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Jeffrey Beall
I am not familiar with this 20% copyright business. It may be something from German law. We don’t have this in American law.
↧
Comment on New OA Publisher: the Council for Innovative Research by SD
People are not born knowing how to do this stuff. They need access to education and resources for a long time and at a high level. The need teachers who also had access to those things and an educational system that values them. It’s not as simple as paying a fee. No excuses, just an awareness of the complexity of the problem of bringing access to more of the world and of the ground realities while it happens.
↧
Comment on Defining Platinum Open Access by Kenneth Mitton
One of the first journals ever formed to be paperless from the start is Molecular Vision, which began in 1995. Way back, in internet years. Now this respected Journal has almost 20 full years of publishing under its belt and it continues to provide NO-FEE publishing to authors. I dare say, they are a gold-standard example of how to publish open access and the editorial board includes top research scientists and academics in the vision science community. These are men and women who have also served as executive of the two largest vision research societies (ARVO and ISER) and are Fellows of ARVO (FARVO).
Its likely best just use plain english and state NO-FEE publishing if that is the case. As a reviewer and an author for Molecular Vision, I can attest that my paper submissions get good reviews, and they are real true peer reviews. Usually I need to revise and resubmit.
I dare say that my colleagues at Emory University who began Molecular Vision were quite “visionary”, and I recall many scientists at the time discussing if a paperless journal would fly. Well, not only have all the older respected paper journals moved into online publishing, many of them have now dropped their paper print versions.
In today’s (2014) universe of bogus open access for-profit journals, it is nice to remember that there are excellent journals that are open-access, and cost-free to authors, with the support of wonderful sponsors who make this possible.
Mr Beall, how about a list of Open Access publishers who are doing peer-review and production cost the right way? Like Molecular Vision. (http://molvis.org)
Ken Mitton, PhD
Associate Professor of Biomedical Sciences
Eye Research Institute
Oakland University.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
