It is an old post, but I just noticed another legitimate journal whose title Photon “borrowed” – International Journal of Proteomics – is published by Hindawi Press
Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Yurii
↧
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by drswetharm
its funny when someone who can write a whole article cannot take the pain of writing a proper introduction and conclusion. Using the same sentences someone else wrote shows utter lack of creativity and points towards the possibility that the data too might be cooked up. i have seen several of my colleagues and friends do the same for their thesis with the explanation ‘everyone does it’.. This practice is just the extended ‘acceptable’ version of plagiarism, and should not be .encouraged for the sake of original research.
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by rory robertson former fattie
wkdawson,
The promotion of “peer reviewed” nonsense as scientific fact appears to be a greater risk when guest editors are allowed to oversee the publication of their own papers. For example:
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients/special_issues/carbohydrates
http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/RRsubmission2inquiry.pdf
↧
Comment on Under Pressure, MDPI Tries to Clean House, Retracts Paper by Joel Kinnamann
I looked up the stories about Fang and Xiao recently, having followed bits and pieces from what I read in Jeff’s blog… I do not know much background since I don’t read Chinese… What I found however, does not completely match your story.
Nature news reported on Sep. 21, 2010 that Fang was attacked by hired thugs on Xiao’s directive. The alleged motive behind was that Fang criticised Xiao’s experimental surgical procedure and exposed Xiao’s padded CV, among other things.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467511a.html
One month later, Nature published an editorial following Xiao’s trial and 5.5 month sentence.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/467884a.html
The last time Nature news addressed Fang Shi-min was when Nature awarded him the inaugural John Maddox prize for exposing scientific fraudsters in China.
http://www.nature.com/news/john-maddox-prize-1.11750
If one accepts that Nature or NPG is a reasonably credible and objective publisher, from their reports one could profile Fang as such: a well-known fraud-buster who runs a non-governmental platform against science fraud in China, he success culminating in receiving an international reward from a prestigious science publisher; along the way Fang also made numerous enemies, one of them even resorted to physical violence.
As for Xiao, the most independent source I found was this: NIH has withdrawn his clinical trials: http://clinicaltrials.gov/archive/NCT01096459/2013_08_01/changes
So what is going on?
↧
Comment on Under Pressure, MDPI Tries to Clean House, Retracts Paper by leo
Rory,
What is your opinion of Science’s editorial quality control in the publication of the “arsenic-feeding bacteria”? Here it is: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1163
↧
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Wayne Dawson
Roy Robertson
<>
Nevertheless, it is not a unique problem of OA journals. It has been a long enduring practice of a lot of stuff I have witnessed in academia in fact; indeed __long__ before OA was even an idea that could be implemented. Academics have stubborn opinions (sometimes right and sometimes not) and will find a way around the roadblocks (rightly or wrongly) put against these ideas.
I have already commented on several of your posts on this matter. I understand that this is annoying to you in particular, but this is one miscreant act in one journal: with Animals possibly yet another. I can accept that mdpi has some issues. Nevertheless, these are far from unique to OA and could have happened elsewhere to some unsuspecting editor.
How about the recent blow up over Obokata’s publications in Nature and the handling of matters at RIKEN? More and more big kahunas on the author list and your paper is guaranteed respect in the Nature pipeline? Prof so-and-so is an authority, who would _dare_ to question this? Yet us little fish are quickly shook off before it ever gets to the reviewers for a serious evaluation.
Academics was once part of nobility. It is, therefore, even today, a system that largely presumes that articles and research are submitted to journals in good faith. In effect, authors agree to that upon submission. Perhaps there have always been frauds in this business, but fraud is a very serious (career demolishing) crime to charge a scientist with. It speaks to the very intellectual integrity of the person.
I can agree that mdpi probably needs a few more checks and balances. NPG evidently does too. Can we at least finally move from justice in the time of Achan (Jos 7:16ff) to that understood in the time of Ezekiel (Ez 18)?
↧
Comment on Researchers Find “Naming Of Allah” Prevents Certain Histological Changes in Slaughtered Broilers by DEUS
Really? How the different cutting methods may have different results in muscle contractions? References please.
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by Brent
I’m not sure exactly when it happened within the past four weeks, but the article has now been retracted. Here is the explanation from the article’s page (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-013-1130-5):
“The Editor-in-Chief has decided to retract the following article G. Akhmat et al.: Educational reforms and internationalization of universities: evidence from major regions of the world. Scientometrics 98, pp. 2185-2205, DOI 10.1007/s11192-013-1130-5. Upon investigation carried out according to the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, it has been found that the article duplicates paragraphs of various internet sources as well as copied paragraphs from published papers. In particular the authors duplicated parts from Section V of a report on The Impact of Education on Economic Growth: Theory, Findings, and Policy Implications by Brian G. Dahlin, Duke University 2008 without proper attribution. The author(s) has (have) agreed to the retraction.”
Given the extent of verbatim copying from other works, I might’ve put “authors” in quotes…
In any case, I’m glad to see that the Editor-in-Chief of Scientometrics did the right thing here. Hopefully it will also lead to a more rigorous review and editorial process at the journal. At least one researcher who I have a great deal of respect for has published in the journal, so I would hate to see the reputation of the journal be tarnished to the point where it negatively affects people who have published in it.
↧
Comment on IBIMA Publishing: How NOT to Run a Business by khal
I really appreciate what you are doing and exposing these scam artist that are corrupting the research field…thank you
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals by Neil Levy
Smith and Franklin claim to charge no fees of any sort, neither for authors nor readers. See here:
http://smithandfranklin.com/faqs
You include them on your list. Are there hidden costs? Or should they be removed?
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
I am preparing a blog post that will answer this question.
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by SD
YAY! This makes me really happy. We really did not need Springer saying this was ok. Thank you, thank you, thank you to Jeffrey Beall and to Springer and to the angels of academic integrity! My faith is restored.
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by SD
Btw, I don’t have time right now to investigate (on a deadline), but I notice these authors, together and in other groups, have a lot of articles published.
↧
↧
Comment on Another Fleet Startup: JSciMed Central by Joseph Tariman
This company JSciMedcentral is likely a fraudulent company. I was invited to serve as “special issue editor” and I receive a paper from a Dr. Ota Fuchs from Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, U Nemocnice 1, 128 20 Prague 2, Czech Republic. The abstract says myeloma is a primary bone malignancy, which every hematologist knows is a wrong statement. Myeloma is a hematologic malignacy; not a primary bone malignancy. There were 9 figures related to proteasome inhibition and they were beautifully crafted but no citation of sources; a clear example of plagiarism. I believe this paper was not written by Dr. Ota Fuchs. It was fabricated by JScimedCentral.
When I submitted the whole special issue on myeloma containing an editorial, a case report, 2 review papers and an original research paper, I did not get any reply from Christine Abraham, editorial assistant with a contact info as follows:
2952 Market Street, Suite 140
San Diego, California 92102, USA
Tel: 1-302-360-8046
Fax: 1-302-360-8174
Toll free number: 1-800-762-9856
E-mail: hematology@jscimedcentral.com
I did Google earth and found that this physical address is a a house in a shoddy neighborhood/warehouse area in San Diego.
DO NOT give your credit card number via email to this company to pay for open access of your manuscript. When you call the number provided, you will only get a robotic voice mail messages. I called this number 5 times during office hours Pacific time and never got a real person. A clear Red Flag.
↧
Comment on Another Fleet Startup: JSciMed Central by Joseph Tariman
Thank you for posting. Your message prompted me to further investigate this publisher before giving any credit card info.
↧
Comment on Scholarly Article Submitted and Accepted before Research is Completed by leo
Hypothetically, is it allowed for authors to correct errors after the paper was accepted? I mean there is the final step of sending back proofs (to the publisher), which technically is post-acceptance but pre-publication…
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by leo
I read this piece called “the seven sins in academic behavior in the natural sciences”, authored by Wilfred F. van Gunsteren at ETH Zurich. He also brought up a similar argument. One of his points states: “technical descriptions of a procedure with slightly varying parameter values that is used in research over and over will not be changed from one paper to the next or from PhD thesis to PhD thesis, because there is no academic value in modifying a description already highly optimized with respect to clarity. Such copying of test does not violate the basic rules of academia and doesn’t constitute plagiarism”. The author also stated that “true plagiarism is, however, the theft of ideas followed by improper referencing”. So it all comes down to referencing.
↧
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by hamdan
It is useful to our scholars in indonesia. They aching wish to publish their works in international journal. Most of them publish by fraud. Go go Beall.
↧
Comment on Jordanian Publisher Cleverly Lifts Title from Respected Journal by Muhammad
Check the offices
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by jane
This is a wonderful page… practically the “don’ts” of where to publish (and I look forward to the “do’s” – which open access journals are trustworthy…!).
I would like to ask if you know anything about Open Journal of Ophthalmology (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojoph/). My university has encouraged us to publish in this journal, as they have arranged for a discount on publishing in the next two months. However, I can’t seem to find out anything about it. Is it worthwhile to send articles here, or would you advise caution? I worry about being biased because it seems to be a new journal, but everyone has to start somewhere, after all. thank you very much/
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
