Comments for Scholarly Open Access

[...] is a similar risk in publishing dissertations through some non-peer review publishers such as Lambert Publishing. While they are not exactly a ‘vanity press’, LAP is not your typical [...]

The problem is with the “gold” open access model itself. It is an encouragement for them to profit from faculty who are not being careful about where they publish. This is a faulty revenue model in any case. Why would institutions 1. Donate works for free; 2 Then pay for the privilege of so doing. 3. Then 3 Pay again to purchase rights to the database.
This model is worse than the present donate and buy back model. At least you don’t pay twice.
Rory

In addition, a gold OA publisher’s revenue is proportional to the number of papers he accepts. So there is no incentive to maintain a serious peer review process.
Of course, in the long run this will have a negative effect on the journal’s reputation. But it is so easy to start a whole bunch of new ones…

https://www.facebook.com/POA.Publishers

[...] Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 « Scholarly Open Access [...]

Every single one of my blog posts has been deleted because I state the truth and because I have a fundamental insight that has not led to a profound improvement of Mr. Beall’s blog. I hope that this one comment will be left in peace. The problem is not with the gold OA model or the whatever colour model. It is with who implements it. And, to think that the publishers are serving the maximum profit in this scheme is extremely naive. Please start to question the main-stream publishers, the ministries of education and who serves on them. Finally, if we look at Italy and Greece, please examine the banking sector and the government positions in the EU, and please start to draw parallels to the corporatism taking place in science and science publishing. The astute will be able to link the dots. Its those who are unable to link the dots that worries me the most… if we have enough people linking the dots, then the solution to OA fraud can be found. One clue to the way forward: No. 148 on Beall’s list 1. Medical Science Journals. We need boycotts followed by total closure. I personally hope to see “Dead link” on at least half the list by next year.

[...] hilfreich. Um schwarze Schafe, also die unseriösen Open-Access-Verlage, zu identifizieren, ist Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 ein geeignetes [...]

Robert, you are ridiculous. First, all of those profs did publish in those journals while at WIU. Some of them have only JUST retired. As for your assertion that NONE of these were tenured or retained as a result of these publications–how do you know? You don’t. And, the DW stated in their post that they weren’t including Unit B (for obvious reasons), which you are clearly including in your numbers.

One journal to be added to the title list of this publisher: Frontiers in Environmental Engineering http://www.seipub.org/fiee/

When possible, I try to list the publishers instead of listing every journal title. In this case, the publisher is Science and Engineering Publishing Company, and this publisher is already on my list. Still, thank you for the tip. –Jeffrey Beall.

[...] List” hatten wir hier vor einiger Zeit schon einmal. Die Liste wurde nun aktualisiert und vor einigen Tagen wurden auch die Kriterien veröffentlicht, die zu einer Aufnahme [...]

[...] approach is to consider where you should not publish by consulting Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers for 2013. The number of nefarious publishers has exploded over the past year, rising from 23 in the previous [...]

[...] SPHN did not know about this issue until a few weeks after I wrote about it in early September of this year. Later, the offending website was blocked from the [...]

Who are you?

The impostor website has a “typo” in the URL in the notification about that URL not being the official website of the journal. Hadn’t I been warned before looking at the site, I would have been confused by that statement (assuming I had seen it; it isn’t that clear).

I’m by no means qualified to give reliable judicial advice, but I’d say:
A court may probably order the host to take down the website for trademark infringement and support of criminal activities. The host appears to be iPage/Fastdomain:
Registrar: FastDomain Inc.
Provider Name….: iPage Inc.
Provider Whois…: whois.fastdomain.com
Provider Homepage: http://www.ipage.com/
Domain Name: ARCHIVEOFSCIENCE.COM
Created on…………..: 2012-09-02 05:50:22 GMT
Expires on…………..: 2013-09-02 05:50:22 GMT
Last modified on……..: 2012-09-02 06:09:19 GMT
Registrant Info: (FAST-15019563)

Or in this case, one could claim that the notice is invisible, incomplete and incorrect (due to the typos). I’d say the owners are not complying with the court order, showing their malicious intentions.

Bencomp, some great refreshing alternative solutions. Good background work. How would a site like http://www.plantstress.com, who openly infringes upon the copyrights of main publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, OUP, and others, be considered to be any less criminal? How is a site such as this, who has imposed its own notion of “open access”, by basically stealing copyrighted PDFs, allowed to operate freely while we seek justice against publishers such as this fake Archives des Sciences? Is there a two-tier justice system already in place as I argue above? Why is it that the mainstream publishers do not close down such a web-site but prefer rather to chase scientists with an iron hand of legal threats for posting copyrighted PDF files on personal websites for the purpose of academics to see and appreciate? Your insight would be welcomed.

As far as the real location of the impostors is concerned, the paper template in the submission guide might be a giveaway.

One thing that strikes me about predatory OA publishers is that none of them seems to offer LaTeX style files. I don’t know any mathematician who would have his work published in as ugly a format as MS word.

Good point. The template uses Canada and Nigeria in its examples.

Well, my “research” was incomplete:
archiveofscience.com was registered through ipage.com, but http://sciencesarchive.com/ redirects to it (and was registered through enom.com) and the domain mentioned in the notice on the fake journal homepage gives access to a different website in the same design (and the domain was registered at tucows.com).
Not sure why you’re asking me, but I guess offering someone else’s things is a different kind of activity than pretending that you are that someone else. Have you tried notifying the copyright holders of the infringement?

Latest Images