I spoke to a Thomson Reuters representative at their booth at a conference this summer. He told me they are aware of the problem but are unconcerned. I was surprised by this.
Comment on OA Publisher Disappears from Internet, Goes Out of Business by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on Is OMICS Publishing Group Sneakily Trying to Buy Its Way into PubMed? by Me
They are an alternative to publishers with thorough and transparent peer review. I submitted to an OMICS journal and can confirm only lip service was done to the process of peer review.
↧
Comment on New Predatory Publisher Copies Look and Feel of BioMed Central by alexo
please this one is predator or not
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Azin
Dear Dr. Jeffrey
Please inform me about the quality of this journal.
Kind regards,
Azin
↧
Comment on New Predatory Publisher Copies Look and Feel of BioMed Central by Jeffrey Beall
It is not.
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
That journal is on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>, so I recommend against submitting papers to it.
↧
Comment on Scholarly Authors are Increasingly Experiencing APC Fatigue by Istvan Mohacsi
I believe Hindawi is changing it’s business model. With a new predatory “pay & print” open access publisher popping up every week, the “low-end” is getting crowded. I guess they are trying to raise themselves above this OA swamp.
↧
Comment on Mysterious Institute Launches with Nine Journals by tina halpain
As a founding member, I just wanted to address some of the concerns expressed above.
Coltharp Institute a recently formed organization focused on delivering an engaging conference experience with the publication of journals. It is definitely in its infancy, but is a legitimate organization. Coltharp Institute was founded in honor of one of the owners dad who recently passed away. Just to re-enforce what John stated above Dr. Jean Gordon is a real person a distinguished professor.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
It is very difficult to withdraw manuscripts from low-quality publishers. Sorry.
↧
↧
Comment on OA Publisher Disappears from Internet, Goes Out of Business by Jeffrey Beall
Interesting. Thanks. They must still be sitting on the server. But the home page is gone.
↧
Comment on Mysterious Institute Launches with Nine Journals by bill
Dear Tina,
Thanks for clarifying the situation and good luck with the Institute.
↧
Comment on Scholarly Authors are Increasingly Experiencing APC Fatigue by Harvey Kane
It seems to me that the need for accuracy in a medical paper far outstrips the quest for rapid publication. People’s lives could be at stake. I would guess that is why the care was and is being taken by the leading medical journal. In fact, I would guess that is why that journal is a leading journal.
↧
Comment on An Editorial Board Mass-Resignation — from an Open-Access Journal by Leslie
It’s not exactly a mass resignation if one board member stayed on to become the editor-in-chief. Believe it or not, I actually know Anatole. I have no idea what he is doing as editor of this journal, since he is a chemist, not an anthropologist!
↧
↧
Comment on An Editorial Board Mass-Resignation — from an Open-Access Journal by Yurii
Actually, Anatole is kinda everything and a little bit more. He has a number of works on “DNA genealogy” that were published in this very journal.
↧
Comment on Red Alert: Avens Publishing Group by Assem
what to do to withdrow my minuscript I was sent to medcrave group
↧
Comment on An Editorial Board Mass-Resignation — from an Open-Access Journal by Marco
Well, if his Wikipedia entry is correct, it is not so odd he is involved.
↧
Comment on Scholarly Authors are Increasingly Experiencing APC Fatigue by Claudia C. Holland
But, Harvey, using your logic, the longer a paper takes to be reviewed, revised, and re-reviewed, the more worthy the journal! I agree care should be taken in any peer-review process but presumably timeliness is as crucial, as is making one’s data available for replication purposes.
I believe we all would agree that there is no free lunch. Someone has to pay either with $ (e.g., author, subscriber, funder, institution) or in-kind service (e.g., editorial, review, institutional). Publishers do offer a valuable service and should receive compensation. The question is, how much is considered fair or reasonable?
Btw, Harvey, here’s a blog post (http://curt-rice.com/2014/09/30/main-problem-open-access-best-way-fix-isnt-going-work/) that might interest you regarding the “purpose” of the OA movement. The problem, as detailed in this Bernstein Research report http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Aspesi.pdf, is the movement is not as focused as it should be. Consequently, we are not realizing the impact we had hoped for.
As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us!”
↧
↧
Comment on Scholarly Authors are Increasingly Experiencing APC Fatigue by Harvey Kane
I was in Frankfurt when OA was first proposed behind closed doors.
Those in the sciences who really need to know the results of a paper know about it way before the paper is even penned. I don’t know of any top scientist who waits for a paper to be published to get his/her data out there to be verified. The community is so small that e mail and a phone call really suffices in the transmittal of the information.
If a medical breakthrough is achieved, and that seldom happens, it is known ASAP. Accuracy in the published paper is more important than timeliness.
↧
Comment on Scholarly Authors are Increasingly Experiencing APC Fatigue by Benno von Bormann, MD
Harvey I get your point, but lazy reviewers are not automatically good reviewers; and some of them are lazy, simple as that. I’m doing reviews myself and I do it with greatest diligence. When I accept, it means it will be done within 4 weeks maximum. Nowadays with the Internet at hand, this is more than enough; either you’re an expert in the field or you’re not. People arguing they are snowed under with duties should reject the job, which would be fair towards the authors. But experts jump at the chance to be reviewer for high IF Journals, not always to enhance scientific quality but their own reputation.
The case I’ve explained above means that an actual randomized trial with a new therapeutic approach in perioperative pain management (which may benefit the patients) already lost > half a year; outcome unknown. Interestingly none of these ‘leading’ Journals (for me, there is no such thing) care about conflicts of interest, something that can be much more dangerous for patients. Authors declare it, and that’s it. Consequences – None! I fully agree with J. Ioannidis that at least 90% of the medical literature is flawed and contaminated with heavy bias.
It’s the experience of our own group: Scrutiny regarding reliability of data incl. submitting the raw-data, ethical concerns, funding from ‘interested groups’ was much more thorough in PeerJ compared to Journals with IF 51, 37, 18, 14, 6, 5, and 3 respectively. Again, we have zero ties to any publisher, but in the future we will care less about IF, and more about the availability of our data.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Raj
How about this- http://pub.iapchem.org/ojs/index.php/admet/index#
ADMET & DMPK
ADMET & DMPK (ISSN:1848-7718) is an international, peer reviewed open-access Journal aiming for rapid dissemination of orginal research articles, review papers and comments in the broad areas of absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, toxicology and pharmacokinetics of drugs. The emphasis is on rapid publishing of articles of high scientific quality and make them freely available to researchers worldwide.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
