I’ve analyzed it and find it somewhat messy, but I don’t think it meets the criteria for inclusion on the list.
If you think it should be on the list, I’d be interested to hear what you think.
Comment on Research by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on WSEAS and NAUN: Two Publishers (and Conference Organizers) to Avoid by Fabiola
Thank you for your response. What about ISI?
↧
Comment on Is Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) Publishing Pseudo-Science? by Ole, Ole!
So, the key question is, how do we stop them? Shaming them publically is not working, transnational prosecutions are not viable, or even possible, and directors and CEOs are not (and cannot be) held accountable. So, how do we stop clear academic open access monstrosities from advancing when there is a massive “market” for them by a pool of scientists that doesn’t care about quality?
↧
Comment on Is Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) Publishing Pseudo-Science? by Quark
Please not Galileo again ! It was inquisition which has “judged” him because of his work not lined up with religious beliefs, nothing to do with his “peer”. This is a plain sophistical comparison.
↧
Comment on Icelandic Journal Latest Victim of Journal Hijacking by victor
The Jokull scam is still alive [03 August 2014]. We have just received an email accepting our paper and urged to pay $515 in four days -which we didn’t since I smelled a scam…
↧
↧
Comment on Research by KM
It was difficult for me to find the authors guidelines and the publication fee and the journals scope is a bit broad (e.g. politics, economics and law), apart from that I do not have any particular argument for its inclusion on the list.
The reason I am a bit concerned is that I regularly receive e-mails from publishers (most of them are on your list) to submit or review papers. Since the OA publishing industry keeps growing, it is important to distinguish which of them trully deserve attention.
↧
Comment on Meta-analyses and the Problems of Duplicate Publication and Plagiarism by WP Breytenbach
As a peer reviewer, I had a case where a proposed paper (in English) has been published earlier in Portuguese, with the order of the author’s names shuffled around and some minor changes made to the content.
↧
Comment on Researchers Find “Naming Of Allah” Prevents Certain Histological Changes in Slaughtered Broilers by Dr Khenenou tarek
Dear colleagues I have recently received your critics about my published article entitled
Histological Changes in Liver and Pectoral Muscles of Broiler Chickens Slaughtered with and Without Naming of Allah
Your points of view were quite professional and authentic . what I have understood is that all your guiding opinions were based on one Idea which is “ science has nothing to do with religion “ and that you find my study has a religious background which means ‘’subjectivity ‘’ .
Colleagues , I want to remind you that this study in particular was performed methodically with real scientific experiments and tools and the results were true and undoubted .whatever my religious background ,my beliefs or my thought is ; my study should be judged objectively out of its religious content .
I tried to show you a real scientific phenomenon ; the couple of experiments showed clearly the impact of a particular human speech’’ sounds” (Bismi Allahi Allahu Akbbar/ In the name of Allah god is the greatest’ on animal body and the comparison between two samples slaughtered the same way left nothing to discuss
Colleagues, science has always raised the slogan of “objectivity’ ‘ I wish that my study would be judged objectively regardless my religious background .
Responding to some questions :
Answer1 : This is a new study and no one tried to repeat it yet so no one can assume that it’s non reproducible ; if that happened and any contradiction is found please send it me so that you enrich the study .
Answer2 :science has explored many domains ,solved many problems and cured many diseases ;it have been always in the favour of humanity but in the other hand hundreds of questions still waiting for answers and hundreds of phenomena still waiting for explanations science has no barriers ,even religious troubles needs discussion and treatment ,we must stop escaping from metaphysical phenomena which effects human life,
Answer3: scholarly journals have been always a field for new ,revolutionary and fearless subjects and publishing such an article is a scientific duty
Finally ,this topic has gained a huge critic and echo means simply that this issue deserves to be reproduced and published to be read in a larger scale
kind regards
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Mihaly Mezei
There seems to be an other damage done by the predatory publishers. I am an editor for the recently started Computational Biology Journal published by Hindawi (not on the 2014 list). They have a nice website, offering a large number of possible reviewers with links to their publications. It turns out, however, that people refuse to review papers submitted to this journal. The last paper I handled was assigned to 10 reviewers, the only one who accepted the task was a fellow faculty member. I ended up being asked to make a decision based on a single review.
↧
↧
Comment on Questionable OA Publisher Launches with a Clever Website and 52 New Journals by Ian Darby
I just got an email from Georgia Fryar asking me to submit to the journals – they will decide where my paper fits (handy). The journal titles sound in some cases rather weird and I note that some of them have only two issues per year and currently only 2 papers published. The editorial boards are aso less than impressive. I do note that an apartment in a not very attractive building is currently for rent at 42 Monticello Street, NY – so maybe they have moved!
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Dickson Mireku
please what about Journal of Biodiversity Management and Forestry. Is it a predatory journal?
↧
Comment on Red Alert: Avens Publishing Group by Henry Woo
Thanks for this article Jeff. I just received an invite from Avens to join an editorial board. The usual rubbish trying to appeal to vanity and trying to butter me up with words like reputation, distinction and eminent. Non-profit my ass. I looked at the editorial board – hardly eminent – mainly naive assistant professor looking for a break. The discussion in the comments above seemed to have degenerated into a persecution complex rather than one about the Avens as posted.
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by JJ
They are still at it – I received solicitation from this company for submission to a journal entitled US-China Education Review, based on a presentation I did at a regional psychology conference. The study I presented, by the way, had nothing to do with US-China education and little to do with education overall (besides the study was conducted on college students with varying levels of psychological difficulties). I assume the publishers either obtained a list of presenters’ emails from the conference program, or did a search with key words such as “college students.”
While it looked very fishy to me, what I worry is that student presenters at such conferences will be confused and flattered enough by such email solicitations to submit papers to these predatory journals. Especially considering such statements in the spam email as “We have read your paper . . . . We are very interested in your research.” I have seen other solicitations go further and say “we are very impressed by your excellent research” or something along those lines. It’s obviously meant to prey on unsuspecting students and/or inexperienced faculty and researchers.
↧
↧
Comment on Other pages by Michael
It would be very useful to have an app that allows one to find out what articles a particular person has published in predatory journals. More than one would encourage one to ask questions.
↧
Comment on Other pages by akrasiographer
It would be useful to have an app that allows one to find out what articles a particular person has published in predatory journals. More than one would certainly raise questions when hiring, reviewing or evaluating conference submissions.
↧
Comment on Hair Journal Reveals OMICS’ Exploitation of Researchers by Yehuda Klein
It is hard to rank spammers. However the two Publishers that annoy me most often are Bentham Open and SCIRP.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Mutinta Muleya
Dear Mr Beall, A friend of mine submitted a manuscript to one of the journals listed Asian Academic Research association, and in less than five days the paper was accepted for publication, how does this happen. Do they review the papers. I submitted to another journal call international Journal of African Nursing Sciences over a month ago and my paper is still under review.Why the difference
↧
↧
Comment on Introducing: The World Academic Publishing by Chris Fellows
At least one of their journals appears to be making a serious effort at peer review – I was contacted by “Advanced Shipping and Ocean Engineering” to review a manuscript where my expertise was actually relevant, recommended rejection, and a few months later was asked to review a revision of the manuscript. In light of billwilliams’ comment above that they have changed their copyright position, they may possibly now fall into the ‘amateur hour’ rather than ‘predatory’ category.
↧
Comment on Hair Journal Reveals OMICS’ Exploitation of Researchers by herr doktor bimler
Thinning ethics.
I hope this is not the beginning of a Pun escalation between you and the RetractionWatch bloggers.
↧
Comment on Hair Journal Reveals OMICS’ Exploitation of Researchers by P Canning
So let’s see: open access publishing has resulted in scamsters, spammers, deceivers and fraudsters. What good is it to anyone?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
