Comments for Scholarly Open Access

Thank you for publishing this document and for your work in this area.

Interestingly, they also have links to apply for the posts of editors-in-chief and editors. I think publishers are expexted to keep the Editorial board constituted prior to the launch. Merely providing links for applying to the posts of editor-in-chief and editors in their site is ridiculous. Is it not a valid criterion? Dr.Beall. If they are not able to identify and invite 10 (or at least 5 per journal to begin with) to be in the Board, I wonder why do they want to launch?

Isn’t the answer to the question “Why are librarians praising a traditional publisher for coming out with a toll-access product whose content is already available for free?”, the sentence just before it?

On OASPA’s website, there is a link to DOAJ, which requires quality control-”The journal must exercise peer-review or editorial quality control to be included.” However, I searched the directory and found some of them were published by those on the Beall’s list. I start to be wondering if there is anything left for us to believe.

Correct websites of Journals

1. http://www.unige.ch/sphn/ [ARCHIVES DES SCIENCES]
2. http://www.landesmuseum.ktn.gv.at/210226w_DE.htm?seite=15 [Wulfenia]

I already sent my paper to archives des sciences and paied to their, What is the action to published paper?

I am too among suffered authors. Mostly, we checked ISI status from thomsonreuters website(http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/) based on ISSN and Name.Further, impact factor is verified on the basis of ISSN and Name from ISI web of knowledge website (http://www.webofknowledge.com).`Both verification were correct about these two fake Journals. We should contact Editor in Chief of main Journals regarding published papers. May be they help us from such sufferings. Moreover, there must be a mechanism to check webiste of the respective Journal in addition to ISSN number and Journal name by ISI web of Knowledge and thomsonreuters.

Having an ISSN number is not an indicator of quality. Any journal can get an ISSN number for free, without any barriers.

Also, many journals create fake impact factors or falsely state that they have earned an impact factor. I recommend avoiding journals/publishers on my lists and talking to senior researchers in your field — they will know the best journals.

A legit alternative of spamming researchers may be to send the CfP/Introduction/Announcments to scholarly mailing lists.

[...] If you receive an email asking you to publish, make sure you research that publisher, and verify that their name does not appear on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers. [...]

[...] sure to also take a look at Beall’s Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) for many useful [...]

[...] Genamics JournalSeek is often good for finding ISSNs. 3. If the journal’s publisher is on Beall’s List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers, then I am very unlikely to add it. There is no hard and fast rule to this, and identifying true [...]

[...] is Jeffrey Beall’s Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers [...]

Not surprisingly, I see lots of rate downs here. I think the predators have come here, seen and gone.

If you want to publish in a journal no one reads, where the reviewers can’t detect broken English (I had a look at a few papers that are free to read), and the call for contributions is in poor English, go ahead. What I and others object to are unethical practices like failing to mention a publication charge until after a paper is accepted, and claiming to be US-based when clearly they are not.

Oh, and the Illinois register of corporations shows David Publishing as “dissolved” as of 12 20 11. If you don’t believe me go here http://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/index.jsp and enter David Publishing as a search. Very dodgy.

Yeah, I can’t say I’m impressed by the predators’ maturity…

based on your comment: “The broader the coverage a journal has, the more papers fall within its scope, generating more submissions and making more money for the publisher.”, what do you think of PLOS One? the scope can not be broader and I do not see any negative publicity about it.

There's plenty of criticism of Plos One. Perhaps you need to look harder. To paraphrase one recent comment, Plos One is a repository masquerading as a journal. What separates Plos One from the predators is that Plos One has good intentions; the predators do not.

“What separates Plos One from the predators is that Plos One has good intentions; the predators do not.”
this is really a subjective opinion.
For example, I am the co-owner of InTech OA publisher (which is on your list), and I am pretty sure that we do not have any “bad” intentions. After all, two of us were scientists. I appreciate your work and energy you invest in clarifying the area of OA publishing, but the line between “good and bad guys” is so not clarified. At the end, it is based on someones subjective opinion, in this case of yours. We tried many times to talk with you openly, but without any success.

Aren't all opinions subjective? Many others have criticized InTech as well, for example, <a href="http://poynder.blogspot.com/2011/10/oa-interviews-intechs-nicola-rylett.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://poynder.blogspot.com/2011/10/oa-interviews-intechs-nicola-rylett.html</a>

Latest Images