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

Comment on Hair Journal Reveals OMICS’ Exploitation of Researchers by Ole, Ole!

0
0

Yehuda, My top spammers list is, in alphabetical order, counting 2013-2014 from my and my associated e-mail accounts (give or take 5% error):
AASCIT: 121 e-mails
Academic Journals: several dozen (mainly invitations to review)
Apex Journals: 50 e-mails
Basic Research Journals: 153 e-mails
Blue Pen Journals: 45 e-mails
Comprehensive Research Journals: 122 e-mails
Herald Journals: 67 e-mails
International Scholars Journals: 231 e-mails
Intercontinental Research Journals: 53 e-mails
International Research Journals: 718 e-mails
LinkedIn: 871 e-mails (all invitations to link)
Merit Research Journals: 164 e-mails
Omics: about 50 (including the same style you are a specialist bla-bla-bla)
Open Science Online: 97 e-mails
Peak Journals: 40 e-mails
Photon JOurnals: 206 e-mails
Random predatory publisher spam: 1557 e-mails
Prime Journals: 83 e-mails
ResearchGate: 87 e-mails
Science Publishing Group: 315 e-mails
Scientific spam related to company products: in escess of 600 e-mails
Standard Research Journals: 84 e-mails
Universal Research Journals: 55 e-mails
Wudpecker Journals: 172 e-mails

What this indicates:
a) scientists are bombarded with rubbish daily, and it is increasingly difficult to discern what is honest and accurate from what is not.
b) precious time is lost either filetering out spam, classifying it, or reading it. These publishers hope that by throwing in dozens of hooks loaded with palstic bait int the science waters that they will hook some good fish. And they do.
c) Omics does exactly what at least another 20 heavy spammers do, most of which are listed on Beall’s 2014 list.
d) In addition tot he above list, there are about 50 OA publishers that have sent me a moderate amount of spam in 2 years (20-40 e-mails).


Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I don’t know the exact reason for the difference in the timing. If a publisher claims that it has completed a peer review of your paper in five days, I would be very suspicious.

Comment on Hair Journal Reveals OMICS’ Exploitation of Researchers by Dave Langers

0
0

That is about as good an argument as “e-mail has led to spam, so what good is that?”, and certainly no better than “subscription-based publishing has led to publisher monopolies, so what good is that?”. Fraudsters are everywhere where there is something to be gained from fraud. The answer is to guard against them, not throw away the child with the bathwater. Personally, I have never experienced much trouble distinguishing spam from proper opportunities so far. This blacklist is one helpful tool among several; common sense, healthy reservations, and backbone are others.

Comment on Hair Journal Reveals OMICS’ Exploitation of Researchers by Ole, Ole!

0
0

Dave, your position is praiseworthy, but, I am afraid, you represent a tiny minority on the global scene. Please spend a solid day browsing through the papers of most of those journals of the publishers listed on Beall’s list, and I would estimate that most are emerging from developing countries. This is not about you or I being able to recognize the dirty bathwater, but rather about convincing the vast majority of scientists from developing countries that publishing in such journals is unhealthy for their curriculae and for science. The great problem at the moment is that many of them (most?) get full OA fee waivers for the classical “I’m poor from a poor country argument”, making sloppy peer review (or none at all), scamy and spammy e-mails a non-irritant for them. For them, they simply don’t care. They just want to see whatever it is they have produced in a year published in a PDF file. This is the real truth behind why the “corrupt” and non-academic OA movement will flourish and grow.

Comment on LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNALS by Fattori di crescita – Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

0
0

[…] dice Jeffrey Beall che compila la lista nera degli editori “discutibili“ e riviste idem, ormai il DOAJ è discreditato, insieme alle riviste oneste che figurano nel suo […]

Comment on OMICS Publishing Group’s Abuse of Researchers: More Evidence by Farid

0
0

My Friend from Iran who often travels between Iran and US was another victim of this predatory journal. His student received an acceptance letter and bill on a joint paper and OMICS group managed to find his mobile number asking for the bill payment. They were also ready for discount and any price negotiation, my friend said. Eventually, my friend simply ignored their calls and messages and they were left with no payment. I think if anyone treats them like this, they may stop doing business like this and tarnishing growing OA business.

Comment on OMICS Publishing Group’s Abuse of Researchers: More Evidence by ED

0
0

Appropriately, according to his likely fake LinkedIn profile, Joseph G. is the ‎”Fianace Executive at OMICS Group Incorporation”.

Comment on OMICS Publishing Group’s Abuse of Researchers: More Evidence by Ole, Ole!

0
0

Is it not possible to try and get this Joseph Marreddy arrested? There seems to be enough evidence on this page alone showing that he is scamming scientists. His address lists in California, but is he really in Hyderabad? The other thing I noticed among this truly scandalous greedy, non-academic “publisher”, was the clear omission of a very important adjective (in square parentheses): “with the support from 30,000 well qualified [unpaid] editorial board members”. ONe way to sink this boat would be to get the 30,000 editors to resign.


Comment on OMICS Publishing Group’s Abuse of Researchers: More Evidence by Dan Riley

0
0

Undisclosed fees are generally unenforceable (in common law terms, there’s no contract), though of course the details will vary by jurisdiction. If you are a victim of a predatory publisher and are associated with an institution with legal staff, talk to them.

The OMICS group business model is similar to patent trolls and ambulance chasers, in that they depend on people being willing to settle.

Comment on Is Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) Publishing Pseudo-Science? by Dan Riley

0
0

Galileo wasn’t persecuted because his peers didn’t understand him–he was persecuted because the Catholic Church found his conclusions uncomfortable, and he made some powerful political and theological (but not scientific!) enemies.

Galileos are very rare–for every actual Galileo, there are thousands and thousands of inappropriate Galileo comparisons. This is one of them.

For El Naschie to be shown to be correct, he would need to have a coherent theory capable of being tested. I am a physicist, and I have read several of his papers on relativity and dark matter. My professional judgement is that the papers I read fall in to the infamous “not even wrong” category–they are confused nonsense, not testable physical theories.

Comment on Hair Journal Reveals OMICS’ Exploitation of Researchers by Dave Langers

0
0

Impressive list, horrific as the burden is.
However, I do hope that you do not consider invitations to review as spam (provided they are somewhere reasonably near your field of expertise). Peer review is part of the job. There may be various models how to obtain this, but invited reviews are valuable and legit.

Comment on Hair Journal Reveals OMICS’ Exploitation of Researchers by Jeffrey Beall

0
0
I agree, but it is common for predatory publishers to solicit <em>ad hoc</em> peer reviews from scholars with no connection to a journal's focus. For example, when an engineering researcher is invited to review a cardiology article, or when an ecologist is asked to review a business management paper, something is not right.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0
Elsevier publishes a journal called <em>Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health</em>. Savvy Science Publisher publishes a journal called <em>Global Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health</em>. The Elsevier journal is not on my list. Savvy Science Publisher, which is anything but savvy, is on my list. I recommend against submitting papers to journals whose publishers are on my list.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I think so. It’s published by SciTechnol, which is an imprint of OMICS Publishing Group. I strongly recommend that you avoid this journal.

Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by sam

0
0

I felt abused by this company’s hoax conference. They posted my abstract in a “not ever happened ever” conference a year ago. And they allowed my idea mentioned in the abstract viewed by some idea thieves and they used it to claim a new idea. I just saw their abstract just published yesterday in other honored journal. I claimed to OMICS to remove my abstract for about 86 times through email, phone call and comments for the last 1 year. How on earth did they do this to an honest single human being??? Please DO NOT EVER USE THIS SCAM OMICS WEBSITE EVER? please…please….


Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Thanks for letting me know about this publisher, which I’ve added to my list. It has a very messy website, with most of the links dead, and an excessive number of grammatical errors, among other serious problems. I recommend finding a better publisher than this one.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I am assuming you mean the International Forum of Researchers Students and Academician (IFRSA). While I did not see any claims of such an impact factor or quick acceptance notification, I did find that the publisher meets the criteria for inclusion on my list, so I have added it. Its own name is ungrammatical.

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

0
0

This journal is extremely questionable. I strongly recommend that you not submit any papers to it.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Shabbeer Hassan

0
0

Thanks Jeff !! But the Elsevier journal has a strange editorial board list. I didn’t find any designations being listed along them. Do you think that’s suspicious?

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Yup, the editorial board members are listed without any affiliations. This is non-standard and as you say, suspicious. Will you be submitting a paper to this journal?

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images