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

Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by JW

$
0
0

Google Scholar indexes almost everything that Web and Science (as well as PubMed, Scopus, etc.) also indexes. So, Web of Science is merely a subset of Google Scholar. Web of Science offers almost nothing meaningful if your aim is to retrieve all relevant literature.

It is true that Google Scholar indexes quite some junk. But who decides what is junk science and what is not? Should this be the job of Google Scholar? The claim that Google Scholar is a “potentially dangerous database for anyone doing serious research” seems invalid to me. Why should Google provide the filter for the serious scientists? Can’t the serious scientists judge for themselves which paper is valid, and which is not? Isn’t this actually the job/obligation of scientists? If scientists want Google Scholar to filter out the junk for them, it means they apparently cannot decide for themselves which papers to include in their literature review.

If your goal is to do a literature review or meta-analysis, then the grey literature (e.g., government reports, conference proceedings, PhD/MSc student theses) need to be retrieved as well, otherwise you are contributing to publication bias. Web of Science misses all of this. People who only rely on Web of Science (PubMed etc) wrongly assume it is sufficient to rely on a subset of the overall scientific enterprise

It should be noted that Google Scholar indexes papers that appear online within a day or three; other indexing services take months or more.


Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Weekend reads: Scientists behaving badly; sexual harassment at Yale; help us find Retraction Watch bugs at Retraction Watch

$
0
0

[…] Google Scholar is filled with junk science, says Jeffrey Beall. […]

Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Ancora su indici e classifiche – Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

$
0
0

[…] Jeffrey Beall, “Google Scholar is filled with junk science”. […]

Comment on New Open-Access Oncology Journal Has Big Ambitions by Mohammad

$
0
0

I cant believe I didnt see that there! I actually checked for it!! Sorry for the inconvenience.

Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Science Society

$
0
0

Dear All Google Scholar is best search engine eve I has used till date, Yes Web of Science is also a good one but it has limitations for e.g. It require subscription, One major drawback of Web of science is on-line first artical is not available while in Google scholar the artical appears within-2 days once it online published. Google Scholar offers citation alerts
For more details about comparison between Google scholar and Web of Science see following link

http://www.harzing.com/pop_gs.htm

Another post
PubMed, Web of Science, or Google Scholar? A behind-the-scenes guide for life scientists. : So which is better: PubMed, Web of Science, or Google Scholar?

http://libguides.lib.msu.edu/pubmedvsgooglescholar

See Nature News on 7th Novemebr

http://www.nature.com/news/google-scholar-pioneer-on-search-engine-s-future-1.16269

Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Google vs Google Scholar

$
0
0

The argument is accurate, in fact. We cannot blame Google Scholar for not cleaning up the literature is aggregates, simply because there are no existent and clear quantitative criteria to determine what is “junk” from what is not. If there was, probably Google would apply this criterion. This is the downside of liberty and democracy: you have the freedom to produce any rubbish you want, and someone will always want it. I am not in the very painful process of linking the number of papers in the reference lists of a set of peer reviewed journals to assess the number of references that appear in their lists that are from journals or publishers on Beall’s lists of “predatory” journals or publishers. The results are quite simple, but astonishing, especially the trend over time (5-7 years). The paper is in fact already in peer review, and the peer reviewers asked one extremely pertinent question, which I will paraphrase here, because it links beautifully with this story on Google Scholar: would the responsibility of filtering out junk from non-junk references in a scientific paper not be one of the responsibilities of peer reviewers? My answer, well, that will have to wait until the paper is published!

Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Typhoon

$
0
0

“Those denying hypotheses that mainstream science has found to be true, such as those denying that global warming is occurring”

Given the current lack of agreement between empirical observations and predictions by GCM simulations, leading to what has been called “global warming pause/hiatus” puzzle of the past 16 years or so, the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 levels is still very much an open question. The “global warming pause” problem is not fringe science, but has been discussed in such mainstream journals such as Nature.

“Those claiming far-fetched cosmological discoveries or theories that are impossible to prove or disprove”

In HEP, string theory has been has yet to make a testable prediction despite some 30 years of intense effort by the best and brightest in the field with a massive number of publications in leading physics journals.

In HEP/astrophysics, the so-far untestable multiverse hypothesis is currently very much in fashion among some leaders in the field

The point is that there are ideas being promoted in mainstream science that it could be argued easily satisfy your fringe criteria.

Google Scholar is a very useful tool for quickly locating papers in a particular field. Even better, it’s a free service. As with any source of information, caveat emptor always applies.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Bassey

$
0
0

Sir,
we are suspecfting that International Journal of Contempary Scientific Research is a predatory journal that is out to extort money from members of the public. We published a paper with them some months ago and uptill now, the paper has not been uploaded online in google. We are tired of their excuses. The worst is that they are no more replying our mails. So please kindly conduct a search on their activities and publish it online for authors to be aware. Thanks.


Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Peragenious

$
0
0

What’s the big deal? Plenty of the mainstream publishers act similarly. In any case i choose what to buy, and what not to buy from any publisher. The only criterion is the subject and the authors. No fascinated by formalities.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by hangsik

$
0
0

How about ‘American Scientific Publishers’?

Comment on New Bottom-Feeding OA Journal: American Research Thoughts by Koushik Pal and Samir Sharma - not!

$
0
0

Koushik Pal and Samir Sharma. I must respectfully object to the language you have used publically to describe 100% of an entire editor board. Please note that such language carries massive negative consequences for the scientific community because then sites like Beall’s blog will be labelled as sites that allow for libelous comments and unsupported attacks on professionals to pass. You need only see the case of PubPeer and Prof. Sarkar to understand that a veritable war has emerged between the critics and those being criticized [1]. This can even lead to a serious backlash [2]. That said, may I suggest that you please indicate, in as much detail as possible, which individuals you consider to be “robbers” (i.e., thieves) (and the same applies to Samir Sharma when referring to “academic thugs and compulsive plagiarists”), providing evidence publically of such serious misconduct and crimes. One thing is to make a wild and popular accusation. It is a totally different thing to make that accusation with hard-core evidence. The former can be construed as libel, but the latter will garner attention and support for action against the individual publically. The scientific community looks forward to reading the evidence of your claims.
[1] http://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/26/scientist-sues-pubpeer-commenters-subpoenas-site-for-names/
[2] http://scienceretractions.wordpress.com/

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Evgeny Steiner

$
0
0

I beg to disagree: I published a book with CSP, and they never recommended me any contractors. Their quality control people were helpful and moderate in their requests: they gave a list of typos and inconsistencies just for 2.5 pp. That’s all.

Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Mark

$
0
0

No Google, we will live at the condition of the world at leat many years ago. I Google, people will spend hundres times more of time and energy in the life. We are using Google to get information including the owner of this website (I believe) and it’s support but someone using Goolge plus again the Google to offer the information. Good pioint: who have the ability and the right to decide what is junak and what is not? The answer the readers, not others. I use Goolge every day and it is much more useful than others. Why agaisst it? Make the better one please to let me to get information.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

$
0
0

That’s not an open-access publisher, and I limit my work to OA. I do receive many inquiries about this publisher, and this tells me that many find it questionable.

Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Semaine 44/45 | PerrUche en Automne

$
0
0

[…] nouveau produit ne soit pas aussi problématique que Google scholar. Je vous conseille la lecture de cette note qui explique bien les limites de l’utilisation de ce service Google pour faire de la […]


Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Grammar Inc.

$
0
0

Are you a Mark or a Mahmood? May I suggest that you use spell-check and a little grammar editing before posting. It makes understanding your comment a little easier.

Comment on New Open-Access Oncology Journal Has Big Ambitions by Jeffrey Beall

$
0
0

Mohammad, Thank you very much for letting me know about this. I have confirmed that it’s a hijacking (there’s a notice on the legitimate journal’s website) and added it to the list. I appreciate your help. –Jeffrey

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

$
0
0

David Publishing is on my list. Please do not submit any papers to its journals.

Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by livinvinil

$
0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="http://livinvinil.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/" rel="nofollow">Livin' Vinil</a>.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by zale

$
0
0

I was informed by the Academic Star Publishing Company that they are interested in publishing my paper. I searched their site for more info. This is also how I came to read your blog and found the said publishing company included in the predatory list. Comment please. Also, I recently attended a conference outside my country. To my disappointment, it did not meet my expectations. Do you also have a list of predatory academic conferences that collects huge registration fees but are not venues of scholarly done papers? Many thanks………

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images