Comments for Scholarly Open Access

Your comments areelitist, you are attacking me personally , that tells me a lot about you and your science and your intellect. Yes I attacked the establishment that has corraled science to bits of 100 year ancient theories. Get on with the subject , you do not need to know who I am, its not about me its about the establishment you are so trying to protect and patronizethe rest of us. Good for this Publishing company, good for some freedom in scientific publishing. I have never submitted a Manuscript in the journal science , nor nature, I do not like editors still wearing bow ties. Good bye , I am glad I spoke up.

I think you are planning to blacklist all open access journals and also I think some top publishers such as Elsevier, Blackwell and others are behind this game!

[…] Beall, known for his list of possible predatory publishers, has launched a new list, Misleading Metrics. “Predatory publishers use these metrics to make their journals look legitimate,” […]

bravo to PRP editor Nils Morner, he has published an editorial talking about the reality about PRP closure and IPCC
Bravo Ouadfeul and Morner

[…] terapeutica e spirulina che… – che fine ha fatto questa? – ha iniziato una lista delle metriche raccomandate agli stessi di prima. Tanto più se desiderano che una povera pensionata riconosca […]

Perhaps the genuine incompetence – in publishing nonsense dressed as “science” – is limited to some of MDPI’s softer “journals” like Nutrients: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/RRsubmission2inquiry.pdf

In any case, readers and scientists shouldn’t trust a publishing entity that refuses to correct obvious errors/misrepresentations and false scientific “findings” self-published by highly conflicted scientists, “researchers” who really are just excessively confident Glycemic Index advocates.

[…] in de commentaren opgemerkt, staat deze uitgeverij inmiddels op Beall’s list van Open Acces uitgevers en tijdschriften waaraan een luchtje […]

GLOBAL VETERINARIA (IODSI Publishers) is the journal that claims to be SCOPUS Impact Factor having journal. It is also listed on SCIMajor website. This journal is listed in zoological records of THOMSON REUTERS but it is not given any Impact Factor by Reuters.

Excellent, so please let me clarify one thing here. You are confirming that Dr. Chiarelli has engaged in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicate_publication" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">duplicate publication</a>. Correct?

[…] of Scholarly Open-Access Publishing, has included a new list of disreputable publications, Misleading Metrics. The purpose of the new list is to alert researchers to bogus metrics companies that have emerged […]

Thanks for letting me know about this journal. I have added it to my list.

Publishing in arXIv and then a major publisher, if the publisher accepts this, is not duplicate publication.

You’re right. I stand corrected.

MDPI registered in Swissland and only has a couple of sample “employees” in Swissland. As his ex-Chinese owner, chief editor, and manager Mr. Shukun Lin admitted: its process offices, manage offices, computers are in China (see its web sites), and all most all employess are Chinese. Can you call it a “Swisslan publisher”?

No, I would not say that at all, but I believe you and Jeff Shrager have already clarified that this is not duplicate publication and the publisher, CIR, did say they allowed it when I asked them.

For the record, it is not the first article by Dr. Chiarelli in a predatory OA journal:
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo.aspx?journalid=128&doi=10.11648/j.ajpc.20130206.12

There is incomprehensible fixation on the impact factor insomuch I am wondering which kind of Scientists we have!
If scientists are not able to distinguish and recognize the flaws of the impact factor, how ordinary people could trust what “scientists” tell them?
I see that a lot of the so-called scientists are obsessed by the idea of the impact factor! I would say that there is a sickness that should be called “The impact factor addiction”!
It is incredible to which extent some people are focused on distorted measure! It is not surprising that science is going bad with such superficial behaviors from people, which are supposed to be objective and rigorous.
how can I trust a scientist who sees in the “impact factor” a measure of quality? Such “scientists” do not deserve to be called as “scientists”.
What amazing and crazy this obsession with the impact factor!
Illness!

Your comments mirror those of a recently published article: "Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania" by Arturo Casadevall and Ferric C. Fang. It is available <a href="http://mbio.asm.org/content/5/2/e00064-14.full" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

I have been contacted by a Frontiers Editorial Project Manager who wanted me to propose a subject for a research topic based on a recent publication of mine. When I asked her under what journal would this research topic be published, whether she had discussed the possibility of this publication with the editor of the journal she had in mind, and how many research topics are already open under that journal, I received a reply from a different person. This was an Editorial Assistant who did not answer any of my questions but very generally told me that my topic could be on anything I like, provided that it does not overlap with already open subjects. Once I have a full proposal, the topic I choose will be evaluated by the editor of the journal I pick. So clearly they email generic invitation messages to many researchers and capitalize on those who need visibility. Is this *borderline* predatory behavior? It seems to me they’re past that.

halal way of cutting the chicken might be the reason of these differences. and the author may have taken naming Allah and cutting in a halal manner as synonyms as the case seems to be. and its very true that two different cutting methods will have different results in muscle contractions.

Latest Images