It is a good list but why the journals in USA and developed countries are not analysed and listed, is it because they may sue the author immediately. Also the journal Hindawi was added some time back, suddenly removed, is it because of any personal reason? Why only journals from developing countries are being targeted and also only open access journals? Is it because the author is lobbying for the non open access journals ? How far this list is reliable is seriously questionable. I appreciate its a good work which is needed but the list is completely biased which is proved beyond doubt
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Prof.R.Sivakumar
↧
↧
Comment on Research by Jeffrey Beall
I see some problems with this journal. There is no real “contact us” page that gives information about who the publishers really are. I also found serious plagiarism in the first article I examined. The journal tries to make it look like it’s published in the EU, but I doubt that is really the case, and they are intransparent about to the true location. I will investigate further, thanks.
↧
Comment on Publisher Charges Authors for Retractions by A Khan
I agree with you. We are discussing a separate issue (i.e. which journal should retract….). But my point is indirectly related to this issue. let me explain. If a new and small publisher becomes victim of an unethical scientist, very fast we conclude that it is a predatory one. If journal of a giant publisher becomes victim, we are ready to give this journal more and more chances to prove itself. This tendency is not healthy. We (including me) should show more patience for the new before labelling it as bad. We should guide them what they should do or not. If the new publisher fails to prove its good wishes and repeatedly do the same mistakes, we must punish it with some label. But who are experienced and big journals, they should get less chance to prove. Yes, I do agree that there are some true criminals in Beall’s list, who are born to cheat people. They are shameless. Even they get n number of chances they will not correct themselves. They should be really punished by public defamation in your list. But I strongly believe that there are also some new players in Beall’s list who did some mistakes due to lack of experience and honestly try to correct those. But they are not getting sufficient chances to get out of Beall’s list. I think Beall’s work is really doing lots of good thing for the Open Access publishing, but it is slowly creating another big problem. It is creating a real new predatory class of open access publishers. Even the new publishers, who wants to follow good industry practices, has no way out from this list. So, even they want to be good and rectify the errors, they can not. So now these ‘transition level publishers’ will slowly become helpless. But real criminals will grow as (you believe it or not) there are some unethical author who want to easily publish their papers and they want these criminals help to publish their papers without peer review. But as the frustration will grow these ‘transition level publishers’ will slowly enlist their names with these criminals and one fine day they will also become real predator. So there will be one class i.e. born predator and there will be another class i.e forced predator (created by social isolation and punishment). We should be very careful in this case. In this blog and elsewhere Mr. Beall really wanted to do some good service for open access publishing. But as an indirect result of that work, we are creating a bigger problem. I strongly believe that every offender should get chances to become good. It is the base of our social system to allow every offender to rectify. We must punish the criminals. But at the same time we should be careful that our actions/rules/regulations should not create more criminals. I want to request Mr. Beall and other Open Access advocates in this particular aspect. Once you took the seat of the judge to decide who is predator or not, and slowly people accepts your judgement and view (as evident from your recent publications in Nature, Scientists, Higher Education Chronicle, etc), you enter in the more critical area, where much greater responsibility, care, patience are required. You must punish criminals and must allow initial offenders to become good and responsible. Otherwise you may unintentionally create lots of ‘forced predators’. History teaches us that ‘more power demands more patience and more responsibilities’. No doubt that you are now one of the most powerful voices related to open access publication. I hope that my suggestions will be taken positively.
↧
Comment on Publisher Charges Authors for Retractions by A Khan
Chris: Thank you for your response. Kindly carefully see this link: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/09/18/two-publishers-each-have-a-journal-with-the-same-title/#more-720)
Inside this link Mr. Beall has written “It appears that the IBIMA journal appeared first, for it has an article from 2011. All the articles in the SpringerOpen journal are from 2012.” Therefore, being small does not necessary mean that you will be always wrong.
Anyway I support most of the arguments of Beall. He is doing really great job for open access publishing. But no work is perfect (Reference: https://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sparc-oaforum/t4rMZuPmdS4) and we must help Beall to streamline his points to further strengthen his fight against some real criminal publishers. I hope Beall will take my points as one kind of peer review. I don’t mean any personal attack.
↧
Comment on Publisher Charges Authors for Retractions by Nils
Dear Dr Khan,
Thanks for your comments.
Part of what you write seems to indicate that you believe I’m indentical with Dr Beall – this is not the case.
One remark I’d like to make on new publishers: There are already so many journals that I believe one should have a clearly defined scope when creating a new one. I’m not saying that the big publishing companies shouldn’t have competitors. But let’s not forget that also big publishers like Elsevier and Springer started with only a few journals, and grew mainly as a result of buying other publishers. My point is that most successful journals have been created individually or in small groups, by individuals who knew their subject, often in association with scientific societies. Many OA editors in Beall’s list have launched dozens, if not over a hundred journals at the same time. I don’t believe serious scientists would proceed in this way. On the other hand I could name examples of independent journals which are successful. Some of them are open access and have no publication charges, because they get some support by institutions.
↧
↧
Comment on Publisher Charges Authors for Retractions by A Khan
Dear Nils,
(As I have not got any reply link, below our conversation. I am replying in this manner). I am sorry for the confusion. I know that you and Beall are not same. Anyway from my reply the confusion created. I tried to address my most of the messages to Beall only. But I also agree with your all points. Sorry for the confusion. I believe that always competition is healthy. At least some of the new publishers (Hindawai, Co-action, Frontiers, etc) started to break the monopoly of the giants. It is a good sign for all of us. I agree that these new publishers (which are mainly small start-up), are showing immaturity by launching so many journals (50,100,150…or so on). If they really want to manage all the related journal operations ethically and rightly, then they should start with small numbers. They should make successful the first lot (3-6 only. Not more that that). Initial days, they are bound to do some mistakes. But if the number of journal is small, then amount of error will be less and then if you are sincere, you can correct those errors. Then apply those learning to launch next lot of journals (again not more that 3-6). Progressive learning and application of those learning makes things easier. This is the science. A big development can not come overnight. Whenever I see that a new publisher comes up with a fleet of journals, I imagine that this is going to again populate Beall’s list. Anyone related to journal publication, knows how difficult to manage religiously even the peer review formalities of 5 journals. Then for a serious publisher starting with 50/100 journals, will be nightmare. I think this trend started with Benatham Open, when they started 200/300 journal at a time some years ago. Too many journals mean too many errors. Then rectifying those errors will be next to impossible. Ten the publisher will slowly enter inside the darkness of academic criminal publishing.
↧
Comment on A Publisher with no Website: Science and Engineering Publishing Company by Open Access Journal Internasional « a home of knowledge
[...] Science and Engineering Publishing Company [...]
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Leanne
Completely agree with “Scientific and American Publishing” (one of their journals was “American Journal of Tourism Management” ) I found a completely plagarized study with fabricated data in it during my own dissertation research. I emailed “SAP” about their included a false study (and sent them the original article). No reply, surprise!
↧
Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by fas
I already published my thesis with Lap Lambert Publishing House before learning that the message I was acting upon was an academic spam. I wrote to them yesterday not to publish my work as some reputable organizations have decided to publish it. Will this be enough to stop LLPH from publishing my work?
Thanks for the quick response.
↧
↧
Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Jeffrey Beall
It depends on the contract you signed.
↧
Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by fas
Thanks Jeffrey for the quick response. I posted the paper I sent for publishing at LLPH to SSRN since 2011 and my work has received great readership and SSRN stipulated in their agreement with that they deserved the right to send my paper to appropriate online journals, they did exactly this. However, if LLPH decides to publish my thesis without my right and that of SSRN, I think they will be infringing on rights. As an author, I believe I do have a final say right?
↧
Comment on Two Print Journals Completely Hijacked by Online Hoodlums by daqrouq
They used the identity of other journal that is not online, it means it has no website. So that u check their ISSN in thomson, actiouly u see it is indexed but this index is for the other print only journal with same name
↧
Comment on About the Author by Publisher wants $650 to retract duplicated study « Retraction Watch
[...] University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall — who produces a frequently updated list of predatory publishers — first wrote about the case on his blog last week. Beall alerted a journal about a duplication more than two years ago, and who re-reported it earlier this month when he failed to see a retraction. [...]
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Publisher wants $650 to retract duplicated study « Retraction Watch
[...] of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall — who produces a frequently updated list of predatory publishers — first wrote about the case on his blog last week. Beall alerted a journal about a [...]
↧
Comment on Publisher Charges Authors for Retractions by Publisher wants $650 to retract duplicated study « Retraction Watch
[...] Jeffrey Beall — who produces a frequently updated list of predatory publishers — first wrote about the case on his blog last week. Beall alerted a journal about a duplication more than two years ago, and who re-reported it [...]
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Predatory Journals « rameshkmishra
[...] tricks are a recent phenomena in the world of publishing. This website lists hundreds of them http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2013/. What is this all about? Looks like everyone wants to publish some crap somehow. Now, there must be [...]
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Improbable Research » Blog Archive » Twisty Tape in a Tube, in Confab
[...] Thanks to Retraction Watch for alerting us to the existence of CONFAB, the journal’s publisher, and for the further knowledge that CONFAB is included in Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013. [...]
↧
↧
Comment on Publisher Charges Authors for Retractions by Jeffrey Beall
Sir, regarding your statement:
But I strongly believe that there are also some new players in Beall’s list who did some mistakes due to lack of experience and honestly try to correct those. But they are not getting sufficient chances to get out of Beall’s list.
… could you please list about five of these “new players” that you refer to?
My goal is to exclude genuine start-ups from my list. So please let me know who you think falls into this category that I have on my lists.
Thanks.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Terri Boake
I have this week alone received separate emails for at least 4 of this organization’s journals. When one online journal includes 19 separate topics, it is no wonder that the number has escalated! Most of the journals mentioned below have no issues out and any that have an issue, seem to be very “thin”.
CALL FOR PAPER
Dear author,
I hope this email reaches you fine.
We are looking forward to your submission. Here is the information of this journal.
Publication:
International Journal of Engineering Practical Research (IJEPR)
About the journal:
International Journal of Engineering Practical Research (IJEPR) is an internationally refereed journal dedicated to publishing the latest advancements in engineering research. The goal of this journal is to record the latest findings and promote further research in these areas. Scholars from all relevant academic fields are invited to submit high-quality manuscripts that describe the latest, state-of-the-art research results or innovations.
Language:
English
Publisher:
Science and Engineering Publishing Company, USA
E-MAIL:
Website:
Submission:
Your paper will be published with no charge if it is accepted.
Submission deadline: 2013-01-11
Submit papers: http://www.seipub.org/ijepr/OnlineSubmission.aspx
Prepare your paper
Authors are invited to submit full papers, in English;
All submissions will be peer-reviewed based on originality, technical quality and presentation. Your submission must not have been and will not be published elsewhere.
Aims and Scope:
• Artificial Intelligence
• Aerospace Engineering
• Agriculture Engineering
• Biological Engineering Application
• Civil Engineering
• Computer Science Application
• Chemical Engineering
• Energy and Power Engineering
• Electronic and Communication Engineering
• Engineering Enterprise Education
• Engineering Technology Education
• Engineering Training
• Experimental Teaching Reform
• Engineering and Technology Science
• Information Engineering
• Material Engineering
• Mechanical Engineering
• Power and Electrical Engineering
• Environmental Engineering
↧
Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Ahmed Ali
Mr. Fas can you really help by introducing your reputable publisher so that i can also print my book. my book is ready and i was about to send to LAP but after knowing that I am thinking what to do, please help……..
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
