My opinion, for what it’s worth… If you can’t get your registration money back, then I would probably still go. Have a look at the other speakers and see if any of them do interesting stuff – then maybe email them to confirm that they are going. In my experience (of one OMICS conference), the attendees can still make it a worthwhile meeting because they are (probably) all real scientists with science at heart. As an ECR, all speaking experience is useful. The problem is that it does not represent good value for money for you, so if you can get the fees back and use that money to attend a better conference, I would.
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Rich Edwards (cabbagesofdoom)
↧
↧
Comment on Shabby Indian Management Megajournal Reveals Its Peer Review Process by Weekend reads: “Academic science isn’t sexist;” buying your way into university rankings | Retraction Watch
[…] Is this the simplest — and worst — peer review form ever? […]
↧
Comment on New Bottom-Feeding OA Journal: American Research Thoughts by Weekend reads: “Academic science isn’t sexist;” buying your way into university rankings | Retraction Watch
[…] new journal, American Research Thoughts, is neither American nor thoughtful, according to Jeffrey Beall. […]
↧
Comment on New Bottom-Feeding OA Journal: American Research Thoughts by Akhlesh Lakhtakia
I appreciate the creativity behind the title of this journal, which sets it apart from the usual “International Journal of This and That”.
↧
Comment on New Bottom-Feeding OA Journal: American Research Thoughts by Ahmad Hassanat
Mohammad just asked a simple question, why “Not Romanian, not Indian” is so harsh in replying.
I am from a Jordanian university, what “Not Romanian, not Indian” said about funding any conference is not true…
they never paid for a conference her, we have to pay for everything even the registration fees.
↧
↧
Comment on Scholarly Authors are Increasingly Experiencing APC Fatigue by Soumyadeep B
Reblogged this on <a href="http://soumyadeepb.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/scholarly-authors-are-increasingly-experiencing-apc-fatigue/" rel="nofollow">Soumyadeep B</a>.
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by Okuntade Tope Femi
Please how about journal of multidisciplinary engineering science and technology(JMEST). I already submitted a manuscript to them before reading this.
↧
Comment on Questionable OA Publisher Launches with a Clever Website and 52 New Journals by yansa1984
I just got a paper accepted for publication but after doing some research, it just seems really sketchy. The editorial board for Journal of Foreign Languages, Cultures and Civilizations is not known at all. The review process was within 2 weeks and both reviewers accepted my manuscript with no revisions at all (while no journal does that in real life).
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Krishna
Hi
What is your view of BICEAS-Bangkok International Conference on Engineering & Applied Science.
↧
↧
Comment on Publisher Scientific & Academic Publishing Duplicates another Publisher’s Journal Title by Peter Buzzacott
I see you have (what I think is) the newer website and logo at the start of this post but when I clicked on the link for SAP on your list of publishers I was directed to a more dated looking webpage.
Anyway, today I received an invitation from M.C. Davis to submit my research to SAP which began “Dear Label_Name ” ha ha
The problem is, the first example article they give is actually interesting to me (see below), but now I am unlikely to cite it because of the journal it is in. I’ve let the authors know, we’ll see what they say.
Nermin Rezk, Safaa M. Elkotb, Yahya M. Naguib, Swimming Exercise Ameliorates Elevated Blood Pressure and Vascular Endothelial Dysfunction in Old Rats, American Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 5, 2014, pp. 192-202. doi: 10.5923/j.ajmms.20140405.10.
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Ed
I was recently asked to review a paper for the journal ‘Energies’ (which I thought was a strange title). When I hear of a journal I am not familiar with, I check Beall’s list. I declined the invitation. I will admit that the process they provided (title and abstract of paper in email, and a ink to an accept/decline invitation) is consistent with other journals I review papers for: simple and professional. However, given the number of journals on the topic of energy, and the fact that the paper was actually on environmental radioactivity, I openly question why the authors decided to submit the paper to this journal as opposed to a well established journal on topic. It makes me question whether the paper has already been rejected elsewhere or the authors are aware of dubious quality of their work. I do not have time to review poor research (which of course I am speculating on).
On a completely separate thought, I am not sure how the publishing costs should be factored into any analysis of credibility. I recently has a paper accepted in a credible journal….and they had an option to make it open access (which involved more paperwork and a $3k fee). I do not normally publish open access, but in this case, the paper was more of a policy/opinion piece and I wanted it to have broad coverage to an international market. So, the choice to pay (a very high figure over the per page charge) for the open access option was mine alone. Is this predatory? I am not sure.
In any case, thank you for the hard work.
Ed
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by roryrobertsonformerfattier
Ed,
Some may choose to publish in MDPI journals rather than elsewhere because quality control can be so lax that rejection is unlikely; moreover, even if the quality of one’s paper is shown by “post-publication peer review” to be extraordinarily poor – and its main conclusions wrong! – MDPI will not retract the paper: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/RRsubmission2inquiry.pdf
That sort of arrangement might seem attractive to industry-friendly scientists with strong opinions who don’t mind wearing a second hat as MDPI’s “Guest Editor”:
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients/special_issues/carbohydrates http://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients/special_issues/sugar-obesity
↧
Comment on New Bottom-Feeding OA Journal: American Research Thoughts by J.J.
That is a question I frequently ask myself. The same goes for bad journals. Are these people doing research alone in a desert?
Your supervisor, peers, colleagues surely know very well which are the good conferences and journals in your field. And if you are the most experienced person in your research group and still don’t know that, there is something wrong with the hiring process at your institution.
I suspect a lot of authors who submit to bogus conferences and shady journals are well aware of their pay-for-publish nature, for a variety of reasons their research is not publishable in reputable venues and they hope to trick their (usually naive) institution by showing a long list of bogus publications.
An exception to this are inexperienced researchers who fell for the ‘open-access-is-good-karma’ argument from some established researchers and thought they were genuinely doing something good for society by paying 500$ of grant money to a ‘publisher’ operating from an internet cafe.
↧
↧
Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by lorenzoiorio2014
Please, permit me to be a bit surprised by the first part of your comment. In your place, instead of looking at…the editorial manager of the journal and its functionality (!), I would have primarily looked at its Editorial Board to make an idea of its level! Secondarily, I would have checked some of the papers published so far, and to the overall details of the journal’s page. I would also have looked at the Impact Factor, if any; in case of a newly launched journal, the Editorial Board would have been crucial. In this specific case, although it is not my field, I see that Energies actually has an IF, although I cannot judge on the quality of its Editorial Board.
About the fee of 3k$ fee you paid, even if I had that money I do not think I would have wasted it to have my paper Open Access: I would have found other ways to circulate my paper. Frankly speaking, 3k$ seems to me quite predatory….
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by Use of Predatory Journal Publications for Faculty Promotion Sparkled Crisis at Bahir Dar University | Voice of Justice
[…] According to anonymous sources, Bahir Dar University, Haramaye University and Addis Ababa University supposedly the most credible higher education institutes in Ethiopia on the basis of their history of reputations, but that is not the case anymore, faculty members more than 25 secured promotion to a next academic rank after publication of predatory (fraudulent) journals in the past two years. The majority of promotions were conducted on the Peda campus, where College of Business & Economics, College of Science, College of Social Science and College of Health are located. Nevertheless , campuses of College of Agriculture and Institute of Technology had also their lion of shares. Serious embarrassment occurred on Technology Institute campus this week following the Deputy Scientific Director’s quest for accelerated promotion to Associate Professorship, as a result of his publications in the predatory journals. On the same day his promotion request had secured primary support at the school level after lengthy hesitation and decided to forward the application to the institution level Promotion Committee, which has power to accept or reject the case, the list of predatory journals circulated to faculty members. His published articles were appeared in these predatory journals. The director has not yet announced his withdrawal of the application after having known his publications are in the wrong spot. His silence provoked speculation that he might do deliberately in dishonest way just to gain promotion. According to the same sources, departments and schools which had received the dissemination had already suspended these promotions underway. Many of faculties suggested the reverse of all earlier promotions guaranteed for publishing in the predatory journals. The situation created anxiety especially among staff members who benefited from the predatory journal publications, and has sparkled “psychological crisis”, click here to find list of predatory Journals and also click here to criteria of predatory journals. […]
↧
Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by ratko
and here is a text concurring with my opinion
http://thewickedacademic.blogspot.ca/2014/09/publishing-with-lap-lambert-academic.html
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Branislav
I was just a victim of fraud, Journal – Intellectual Archive, I paid 19.90 Us dollars at work. Damn fraudsters !!
↧
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Oh No!
Thanks for that info Rich and I am thinking the same way as you at the moment. Have not paid rego yet – but have paid for flights ($2000 from Aus to Europe). I have planned lab visits etc which I was planning to combine with the conferences. Plus a family holiday so not all is lost. I think closer to the date I will check out the speakers (and contact them directly to make sure they are speaking) and possibly just go to one of the conferences. As you say, the experience is not one I can get easily and its something I very much need on my CV!
↧
Comment on Shabby Indian Management Megajournal Reveals Its Peer Review Process by Lost Hours
I came to your site to do a little check on “IOSR journals” because a poorly written and hardly-of-value paper hosted there showed up on one of my Google searches and wasted much of my time today.
Indeed, http://www.iosrjournals.org/about.html is in your list, though that is little consolation.
In the “about” page (URL above) these worthies also claim to be a “unit of CSIR” (an Indian government funded organization) which is most certainly a lie.
↧
Comment on Scholarly Authors are Increasingly Experiencing APC Fatigue by Benno v. Bormann
Harvey, thank’s for the discussion. I recommend a research on Fibrinogen concentrate (FBC). It’s a promising agent, but scientific evidence is still lacking except for few specific indications. Check the conclusions of the respective researchers and correlate it with the conflicts of interest. All groups, and I mean ALL promoting the generous use of FBC in various clinical settings being published in highest ranking organs are on the payroll of Behring (FBC), the No 1 producer of FBC. I’m talking about advisory board fees, publication and lecturing fees, travel expenses and so on. The few groups with carefull considerations, incl. Cochrane Review are entirely without conflicts o.I. To give an idea about the financial dimensions let’s consider only one country, and only one indication. In Germany with about 400,000 cardiosurgical procedures/year the prophylactic use of low-dose 2 g of fibrinogen concentrate per cardiosurgical patient as promoted by some would be equivalent to a sales volume of approx 300,000,000 Euro/year. Sorry, I don’t share your optimism. Open access with total transparency of the review process may be a step in the right direction.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
