Dear Aberdeed,
You have attended the conference, but you could refuse to pay, if you did not want your paper to be published by them. Why did you pay? You could refuse, did not you? If I were you, I would say I did not have the money, and did not pay.
Another question: why did you give the copyright to them? In my opinion, it is very unusual, as I never transfer a copy right to present a paper in a conference.
Dear Mr Robertson,
Nature also publishes 2 STAP articles that contained plagiarism, and other serious misconducts, and have not retracted the 2 papers yet.
In my opinion, no journal is perfect
Couldn’t agree more. Equally, libraries can’t cancel one part of a “big deal” they are tied into just because a particular journal is low quality. Mr Beall’s remark is simply untrue.
“Although Mr. Hoenig doesn’t use the term “predatory publishers,” …………….”
Yes, that’s because the term is not generally used except by Mr Beall himself.
[…] New York attorney is warning of “junk science” and “trial by literature,” Jeffrey Beall […]
Jeanne,
Cesar was right to be cautious about being involved with a “special issue” of an MDPI journal. In my experience, MDPI has no real commitment to scientific integrity, as for more than two years it has refused to correct the nonsense-based claim that there is “an inverse relationship” between sugar and obesity.
That obviously false “finding” – designed to exonerate sugar as a menace to public health – was self-published in an MDPI “special issue” by a highly conflicted “guest editor” with financial links to the sugar and sugary foods industries: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/RRsubmission2inquiry.pdf ; http://www.gisymbol.com/category/products/sweeteners/ ; http://www.logicane.com/Partners
Meanwhile, the highly conflicted group falsely claiming that there is “an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity also falsely claims in its pop-sci diet books that “There is absolute consensus that sugar in food does not cause [type 2] diabetes”: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/diabetes.pdf
Disturbingly, despite promoting a range of obviously false claims on the links between sugar, obesity and type 2 diabetes – http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Sugar-myths-SydUni-GI-crew.pdf – the University of Sydney’s low-GI crew receives major taxpayer support to research the prevention of….type 2 diabetes!
“PREVIEW is an acronym of PREVention of diabetes through lifestyle Intervention and population studies in Europe and around the World”: http://preview.ning.com/page/resources
[…] Delmarva Business News- Lewes DE Business […]
The librarians at my university would rather not subscribe to “Medical Hypotheses”, for instance, but under their package deal with Elsevier, they do not have that option.
IDOSI is not based in Iran. Their incompetent editor sits in Faisalabad, Pakistan.
I submitted an article to IDOSI in January 2014 and they published it in back dates of 2013. How to cope with these sort of issues. Is there any organization wherein i can launch a formal complaint?
Dear Mr Beall
I have done a search on Elsevier journal finder and found the following journal
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences
Do you believe this is good journal?
Farid
[…] Jeffrey Beall gives overviews of three resources that can assist in finding good journals to publish in at his blog Scholarly Open Access. […]
I pasted the abstract of the lapset submitted paper in all four systems, including the one in comments. This is a five-country multicenter study on a particular type of cancer.
Edanz performed modreately well. The four top suggestions labeled in green included two of the four first choices that we discussed before submitting our manuscript. Thereafter the quality deteriorated rapidly. However it only considered one subspecialty in the Main suggestions. I give this two stars.
Elseviers system was a great disappointment, it was essentially worthless. The top ten suggestions included none of our four first choice candidates although one of them was an Elsevier journal. Only two of the ten would have been even possible, albeit with a far lower impact factor. The rest were cancer journals dedicated to other body parts that would never have considered publishing our paper. And one of the two possible ones was an Egyptian journal without impact factor that would have however accepted 60 percent of manuscripts. No stars!
Jane was surprisinly good. It also came up with two of our actual choices and moreover proposed top journals in two other fields that certainly could be considered for this manuscript depending whom you see as your main audience. Only one of top ten suggestions was unacceptable. Four stars, this one could think out of the box.
Editage was also reasonable. It picked one of our four choices but it was not on the top. It also identified the two other disciplines and actually proposed these as first options. A few options were clear misses. Two stars, because no impact factors, you would need to look these up separately.
These latter two tools based on this trial might be useful for suggesting possibilities accross disciplines in initial stages of choosing the forum for a multidisciplinary publication but in the end you will need a specialist in that discipline to suggest the final choice if it is not your own area of expertice.
very very good information….*****
Procedia is actually the proceedings of a particular conference – if you host a conference with submitted papers, you can have your own volume of Procedia. I’m not sure if it’s on all the volumes, but on at least some there is a statement from Elsevier to the effect that they are not responsible for and peer review processes involved in selecting papers (or indeed, if there is any peer review process at all).
No, but as the other commenter has already stated, it’s not really a journal so much as it is a conference proceeding. I do receive many inquiries about the 20 Procedia titles.
Thank you! I did not know about this service and really appreciate your sharing information about it.
Thank you — this is a very helpful comment. I really appreciate it.
I haven’t analyzed this journal. I didn’t know about it. I will try to analyze it as soon as I can. Thanks for letting me know about it.
