Probably not a full duplication; the article in Telecommunications Policy is 12 pages long, while the article in AJSS is 30 pages. Still should have referenced the previous article in a footnote.
Plus i do not really understand why Mr. Chou incorporated his previous results in the AJSS article; he should have summarized it in 1-2 paragraphs, cite the previous work and write a completely original one -with approx 18pages of new content this is not hard at all.
All of you talk about predatory journals but no one finds a way to help academic people who was cheating by predatory journal.
Thanks for your evaluation Jeffrey. Kind regards, Nadia
What help do you need?
aaand…its gone! next please…
The original site of La Pensee is http://www.gabrielperi.fr/spip.php?page=rubrique_base&id_rubrique=321&lang=fr
There is clears disclaimer in the website. The original Pensee never publishes anything in English and only in English.
This would be a nice point if it were true that subscription-funded publishers did routinely publish letters. Some will publish responses which are essentially mini-papers – others will not even do that, and very, very few will publish letters which, e.g., call out simple logical fallacies or sloppy work. I think it’s mostly because editors would rather not have their own bad judgements publicized. That, in any case, is how it stands in economics and some other social science fields with which I am familiar – unless it’s so different in your field, don’t blame open access.
Hello, Jeffrey. In this post, I will limit myself to a single MDPI journal, i.e. Galaxies. My experience with it was positive so far. I decided to publish in it since, in general, I am favorable to the Open Access philosophy, provided, of course, it is implemented seriously. When I was contacted to publish in Galaxies, the project seemed to me sound and promising. It provides also Altmetric, and I guess it will be indexed by SCOPUS and ISI as soon it will become possible.The Editorial Board listed is made of some quite renowned researchers in the field, some of the authors who decided to publish so far in Galaxies are well known researchers. All my articles were peer-reviewed, and I did not pay anything (so far) to publish in Galaxies. All in all, my opinion on this newly established journal is positive.
Best regards.
When a scholarly journal publishes in all….” Fields of human Endeavour ” , one should be , to say the least , cautious !!!!
Isn’t it high time the international academic community had some sort of regulatory body with executive powers to prosecute these kind of cases and make examples with some people to serve as a deterrent to others? I fear that if things continue like these the time may come when this “monster” cannot be tamed any more!
These are just like Nigerian scams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/419_scams
No one can do much about these except be cautious.
Dear Mr. Beall
Thank you for the list that you created and always updated.
Last month, my manuscript was published in http://thescipub.com/ajas.toc. The publisher have two full address in Australia and the United States. Is my manuscript published will be useless? Best regards.
Dear Beall,
Thanks for your effort here. Actually, I think it is better to check out the publisher “SOCIETY FOR SCIENCE AND NATURE”. I think it is somewhere in Africa. Have you checked it before? If so, did you find any doubt about it?
Please let us know about it.
Mustafa
Always check the sender’s email address. Elsevier wouldn’t use gmail.com
This publisher does list an Australia and a New York City address as you indicate; this tells us for sure that the publisher is not based in either Australia or New York. Your research will not be useless, but in the future, I think you should find a better publisher. Good luck.
Michael
Here is a comment “aus erster Hand” or “straight from the horse’s mouth”
http://ftp.ccl.net/chemistry/resources/messages/2009/10/23.004-dir/index.html
“Admittedly, in our COSMOtherm implementation of COSMO-RS we have a few parameters being not completely disclosed.”
Do you or anyone but the vendor using this software can recreate its results ?
If so please publish the “few parameters being not completely disclosed” AND their values so other people can believe in the results without resorting to faith. Faith is not part of any sound scientific methodology.
How many parameters are “few parameters being not completely disclosed” ? 3 or 30, or 300 ….
It is also possible to refit on the fly all these parameters using the built in database of values and always provide a better answer than the other remakes of a method that is not fully disclosed, this is what is meant by black-box software, one where the user can’t really retrace how it computes. It is secret and proprietary, why should anyone blindly believe in those results ?
BTW If you try to find Klamt at the Uni to ask these questions you will have a hard time because he is not listed in their directory. After reading comments as those posted online I decided not to waste any time on this methodology.
I wish you good luck reading the literature., Michael
Yes.
Yes, I think you made a mistake.
