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

Comment on Life Science Journal Delisted from Scopus by Mahmood

0
0

Dr. Jeffrey, if so, then why its not present in the ISI Master List as of today


Comment on Life Science Journal Delisted from Scopus by Jeffrey Beall

Comment on Would You Take a Cancer Cure Proven Effective in a Predatory Journal? by herr doktor bimler

0
0
Ah, so this is <i>another</i> Yamamoto paper, this time claiming that GcMAF cures AIDS. And I see from their sites that the industry's promoters claim that GcMAF is produced by <b>all viri</b>, so 'nagalase' is a marker of <b>any viral disease</b>. And as you note, GcMAF cures Chronic Fatigue Syndrome... and here's Ruggiero's colleague Bradstreet, <a href="http://www.la-press.com/initial-observations-of-elevated-alpha-n-acetylgalactosaminidase-activ-article-a3450" rel="nofollow">claiming that GcMAF 'cures' autism</a>. That linked publication, incidentally, is through a publishing house called 'Libertas Academica' (currently boasting 35 new journals). They're not in your list and I wondered if you've looked into them.

Comment on Would You Take a Cancer Cure Proven Effective in a Predatory Journal? by herr doktor bimler

0
0

Further thoughts come to mind on the difficulty of distinguishing between predatory journals and their non-predatory peers that limit themselves to mere grasping commercialism ones…
I was looking at this paper, from January:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00934/abstract
Note that it was published in a journal from the Frontiers stable… who normally have decent functioning peer review (although in this case publishing a “special issue”). The third author is Ruggiero. The second author, Pacini, is a frequent Ruggiero collaborator — she was co-author of his AIDS-denialism paper that received the unusual honour of being retracted by ‘Medical Hypotheses’ (and I see that she is also the last author of the first GcMAF paper you listed). The first author, Jeff Bradstreet, specialises in experimental treatments for autism, and at various times has proclaimed chelation, “magnetic
resonance therapy”, stem cells, and now GcMAF as the ‘cure’ (Bradstreet has featured regularly at Orac’s Respectful Insolence blog).

This is a case where I suspect that the Frontiers journal failed in its gatekeeping function, despite its non-predatory nature.

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

When I analyzed it, I found plagiarism in the articles, and the editorial board members were listed without any affiliations and with initials: A. Baker (USA), among other problems.

Comment on Would You Take a Cancer Cure Proven Effective in a Predatory Journal? by herr doktor bimler

0
0
Update to that last comment: the paper by Bradstreet et al. in Front. Hum. Neurosci ("A new methodology of viewing extra-axial fluid and cortical abnormalities in children with autism via transcranial ultrasonography") was followed, a few months later, by a <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00240/full" rel="nofollow">General Commentary Paper</a> by Dario Siniscalco, basically lauding the wonderful groundbreaking nature of Bradstreet's work. Under 'Conflicts of Interest' Siniscalco states "The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest". Sadly, he does <b>not</b> bother stating that he was <i>one of the reviewers</i> of the paper he is now praising; nor that he has collaborated with Bradstreet on numerous studies* with commercial applications (i.e. they are part of Bradstreet's business). Looking down the Commentary Paper, we find it had four reviewers, of whom <i>three</i> are also regular Siniscalco collaborators (Anna Sapone, Nicola Antonucci and Alessandra Cirillo). Of those three, Dr Sapone added her own COI statement that "despite having collaborated with the authors, the review process was handled objectively". I don't know what we can infer from the absence of such a statement from Antonucci and Cirillo. It is all looking remarkably incestuous, and not a good look for Frontiers. * "Mesenchymal stem cells in treating autism"; "Therapeutic role of hematopoietic stem cells in autism spectrum disorder-related inflammation"; "Perspectives on the Use of Stem Cells for Autism Treatment"; "The in vitro GcMAF effects on endocannabinoid system transcriptionomics, receptor formation, and cell activity of autism-derived macrophages"

Comment on Backlog by Jason Eriksen

0
0

Hi Jeffrey,
Here’s a recently launched site that, while it may not be a scam, seems to have some red flags associated with it: http://www.sciencescript.org. One of my colleagues was solicited to join the editorial board, and he asked me if this was legit. Jason. P.S. Also, a word of thanks to you for the incredibly valuable resource you have provided; I constantly point colleagues to your list.

Comment on Meta-analyses and the Problems of Duplicate Publication and Plagiarism by tekija

0
0

This topic is certainly imporant. Luckily, not many putative double publications seem to have passed the meta-analystic filters, which speaks well of most scholars performing them. In fact, if statements such as PRISMA are followed and the work is done carefully enough doublets should come up in the routine process of meta-analysis..

I have two issues with the Choi et al. paper that I would have brought up had I reviewed their manuscript.

First, it would have been important to add analysis and not be so descriptive: discuss why the meta-analyses did not notice the duplication while Choi et al. did. Were they for some reason harder to detect? Did these studies adhere to specific guideline?. Would those guidelines need amendments? Were these meta-analyses performed with generally less rigor? Because Choi et al. seemingly do not identify the partially faulty papers, we can not make a judgement about these aspects. Post publication peer review of their findings and conclusions is impossible.

Second, they do not mention whether the meta-analyses that included duplicate publications and thus were biased according to their opinion have been brought to the attention of the respective journals and editors for consideration of publishing a correction or even a retraction. If not, have the authors pointed out the alledged faults in PubPeer or a similar forum to fellow scientists. If not, they likely have partially failed to maintain scientific integrity.


Comment on Life Science Journal Delisted from Scopus by Mahmood

0
0

Pretty Strange, its July 29 and no update from Thomson Reuters

Comment on Meta-analyses and the Problems of Duplicate Publication and Plagiarism by MK

0
0

In my field (road safety) we often need to consider the “grey” literature as well as peer reviewed publications, and this problem is common. It is not unusual for a non-peer reviewed conference paper to be recycled between conferences, or to be turned into a peer-reviewed publication with sometimes few changes. None of this is necessarily malpractice, because passage into the “true” scientific arena is seen as being a peer review publication, and many of the writers are practitioners rather than academics, but it means that we have to be watchful for duplication when reviewing literature or conducting meta-analyses. I guess it’s clear that this has to apply to the peer reviewed literature as well..

Comment on Backlog by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I have analyzed this publisher and added it to my list. Thanks for letting me know about it.

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by johanneswilm

0
0

@Jeffrey Beall: Yes, but you seem to have your own agenda in relation to journals and open access, and some of the criteria you use for inclusion in the list, such as “The company exists solely for the purpose of earning money [...]” seem to be rather subjective factors. Do Elsevier, Springer and Nature not also exist (solely) for the purpose of earning money? Do that make the stuff that comes from them any less scientific? Why do we have other standards for journals, metrics, etc. that are newer and come mainly from the third world?

If this “real” impact factor isn’t freely available, I’m a bit unsure why anyone should take that into consideration. But of course if the Hindawi journals claim to have one impact factor according to this statistic, and they are really listed with a different value, then that is not OK. As a librarian I imagine you have access to this report. If we could get the name of the journal which supposedly is doing this on the table, then you would be able to validate the claim made above, right?

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Zed

0
0

The only official IF list what we use is Journal Citation Reports.
http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?PointOfEntry=Home&SID=Q1ftbjL83H7yreF3T65

That is the problem, that the journal name and ISSN number is changed, according the rules the IF is not continuous. The new IF is zero for Biomed Res International, which would be split with the last IF of the previous journal in 2015 and got it’s own IF just in 2016 not before. We can play with this how to calculate IF, but I think it is not correct to put the IF until is not given by JCR/TR; I think is more correct to say that Biomed Res Int has no IF yet, but it will have in 2015 (will be published 2016 in JCR). New ISSN means in many country a new journal whit a totally new life history starting to get IF from the zero point.

Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology
ISSN: 1110-7243

Biomed Research International
ISSN: 2314-6133

http://wokinfo.com/essays/impact-factor/

A user’s knowledge of the content and history of the journal studied is very important for appropriate interpretation of impact factors. Situations such as those mentioned above and others such as title change are very important, and often misunderstood, considerations.

A title change affects the impact factor for two years after the change is made. The old and new titles are not unified unless the titles are in the same position alphabetically. In the first year after the title change, the impact is not available for the new title unless the data for old and new can be unified. In the second year, the impact factor is split. The new title may rank lower than expected and the old title may rank higher than expected because only one year of source data is included in its calculation (see Figure 4). Title changes for the current year and the previous year are listed in the JCR® guide

I have no problem with OA I think published papers must reach as many people they can, but publications with their IF are important in the scientific carrier as well.

When the system and the librarian not accept the publications IF because they use very strictly the Thomson Reuters rules its a wasted work.

“This is stealing money from authors.” Ok I have to apologize for this sentence, it’s too hard and not diplomatic. But say the truth I got many problems with this Hindawi”s journals, due this IF problems..

I had no problems with stable Elsevier or other journals even they changed their name or not.

However I wish Hidawi a good process and development not to get this problems in the future.

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Bill Yerger

0
0

Is this a predatory journal? I can’t find this on your list.
International Journal of Education

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Bill, can you supply a link? There are several journals with this title.


Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Bill Yerger

0
0

Amy Li

Editor

International Journal of Education

Macrothink Institute

*************************************

Add: 5348 Vegas Dr.#825, Las Vegas, Nevada 89108, United States

Tel: 1-702-953-1852 ext.506

Fax: 1-702-420-2900

E-mail: ije@macrothink.org

Website: http://www.macrothink.org/ije/

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Bill, this journal is published by the so-called Macrothink “Institute,” which is on my list. It is not an institute in any honest sense of the word, and it is not really based in Las Vegas. They use the address of a “virtual office” there. It’s really based in Toronto, Ontario.

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Garry

0
0

Can i get your imput on Open Journal of Epidemiology. Thank you for your advice

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Bill Yerger

0
0

Thank you for your kind help!

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

This journal is published by SCIRP, Scientific Research Publishing. In my opinion, this is a scholarly vanity press. This publisher publishes much pseudo-science. I will publish a blog post about this tomorrow. This journal is Not Recommended.

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images