Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Scholarly Open Access
Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by ICC


Comment on Would You Submit a Paper to This Publisher? by Smith and Franklin Academic Publishing Corporation, UK

Comment on Would You Submit a Paper to This Publisher? by Weekend reads: How to rescue science, what “censorship” really means, worst paper of the year? | Retraction Watch

0
0

[…] “Would You Submit A Paper To This Publisher?” asks Jeffrey Beall. […]

Comment on Introduction to “Super Closed Access Journals” by Weekend reads: How to rescue science, what “censorship” really means, worst paper of the year? | Retraction Watch

0
0

[…] Introducing Super Closed Access Journals! […]

Comment on Would You Submit a Paper to This Publisher? by Weekend reads: How to rescue science, what “censorship” really means, worst paper of the year? – Nouvelles et satellite scientifique

0
0

[…] “Would You Submit A Paper To This Publisher?” asks Jeffrey Beall. […]

Comment on Red Alert: Avens Publishing Group by Ahmad Hassanat

0
0

is any of these journal with impact factor?

Comment on Red Alert: Avens Publishing Group by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

No, none of the journals has a legitimate impact factor (also, they are too new).

Comment on Red Alert: Avens Publishing Group by alu mudgal

0
0

Mr. Beall,
What do you mean by a legitimate impact factor? If the journal is new, what is the problem?


Comment on Red Alert: Avens Publishing Group by Jeffrey Beall

0
0
By legitimate impact factor, I mean one assigned in <em>Journal Citation Reports</em>.

Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by Pr Mamoudou H. DICKO

0
0

We should find a way to forbide these journals. That can be done at country, regional, continental and worldwide levels. Why not having some standards. For instane each journal which is not recognized by the Thomson Reuters (web of knowledge) can not be accepted for academi purpose!!! Other possibilities is that each “online”journal to be recognize should be should have five official scientific editors (Elsevier, Springer, John Willeys and Sons, Blackwell, ACS, Nature, Science, Academis Press, etc.) who have no objection for its publication online

Comment on Red Alert: Avens Publishing Group by Sudesh Kumar

0
0

Right or wrong, isn’t the motivation for doing this the reason that there is an inherent bias towards (an address in) developing and underdeveloped countries, which are perceived to be of low standard and of poor quality?

This bias itself precludes a level playing field and a fair competition based only on merit.

If the address of a journal is listed as from India, how many western authors will submit their paper to the journal only because of the bias and not anything else, even though the journal may have the best business practices.

If the bias is so inherent, how do can one level the playing field and compete only on merits?

A western address is one way and then when the competition happens, it will only be on merit. May the best journal win.

Comment on Red Alert: Avens Publishing Group by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Wrong. It will be based on deception and trickery for the journal that lies about its headquarters location. Why are so many Indian companies embarrassed to admit they’re from India?

Comment on Would You Submit a Paper to This Publisher? by The Iron Chemist

0
0

As long as its your career and not mine, Lae.

Comment on Greedy Indian Publisher Charges Authors and Readers, Requires Copyright Transfer by The Undertaker

0
0

I, for one, love the acronym.

Comment on Red Alert: Avens Publishing Group by Sudesh Kumar

0
0

If the same publisher was to open two identical journals, one with Indian address and one with US address – which journal do you think will get more submissions and higher quality submissions?

Aren’t ” deception and trickery” (very wrong acts) being used to counter the preexisting bias (again a very wrong act) against journals from these countries; a bias which exists – based on an address – which does not even give them a chance to prove themselves?

I think i said why Indian companies don’t admit they are from India or for that matter from any other developing and underdeveloped countries. I quote again:
—————————–
“There is an inherent bias towards (an address in) developing and underdeveloped countries, which are perceived to be of low standard and of poor quality.

This bias itself precludes a level playing field and a fair competition based only on merit.”
—————————–
Another thing to note is that – address is something which is apparent – one look on the website and you know the address. Processes and procedures of a journal have to be experienced over a long time of 3-4 months (for one manuscript). To make someone experience the processes you have to make them submit a manuscript and interact with them.

If there is a preexisting bias towards some countries, who is going to submit a manuscript to journal from these countries just to experience the processes of a journal AFTER looking at the address and knowing the country of origin. Doesn’t this limit the playing field very unfairly – just because of an address?


Comment on Red Alert: Avens Publishing Group by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Lying to authors is wrong, and you can try to justify it all you want, but I won’t change my mind. All scholarly publishers need to be completely honest and transparent about where they are based. “Leveling the playing field” is not a justification for lying or hiding information from people. Your argument tells me a lot about you personally.

Comment on Introduction to “Super Closed Access Journals” by Stacy Konkiel

0
0

Here’s a question: why are libraries paying third parties like ProQuest for access to journals in the first place?

Pre-selection of content by aggregators may have been an advantage in the past, but the standards don’t seem to be high enough anymore (hence the inclusion of these predatory publishers).

Seems we might better spend our money teaching machines to sort out the good from the bad using a mix of measures (JIFs, altmetrics, Journal Usage Factor, etc) with built-in gaming detection.

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by raul valverde

0
0

It seems that this list is a bit bias. Basically if the journal is open access and charges money, it is predatory. The American journal has an H index of 17 and it is ranked as a Q2 by SJR:
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=6400153122&tip=sid&clean=0

My suggestion would be to remove those journals that are indexed in recognized indexes such as ISI and SCOPUS. It doesn’t make sense to say that they are of poor quality but ranked very high by recognized indexes. This just reduces the credibility of the list you published.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Kesatebrhan Haile

0
0

Dear
The International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research is free journal i.e. has no any publication charge. Moreover, it has 4.57 impact factor. So why is it consider as predator publisher in the list 2? Could you plz explain?

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

That journal does not have an authentic impact factor. It is lying to you, and to others. This, along with many other reasons, is why the journal is on my list.

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images