Comments for Scholarly Open Access

If Spandidos is predatory, it is a very, very professional operation. I personally do not see much wrong with it.

Perhaps also of interest is that Marchetti does not list a lot of the journals on his website; this may well mean he does not even know he is listed as a member of the editorial board (see https://baylorcollegeofmedicine.org/pathimmuno/?pmid=13983)

To be fair, the Scholoxy website is the only place boasting of Dr Marchetti’s editorial status, and Scholoxy Publications are capable of plagiarising the entire editorial board without bothering with the formality of informing the people thereby recruited.
The same names occur on the board of “Oncology Discovery” (from Herbert journals — another predator, I believe) — including Marchetti.

http://www.hoajonline.com/oncology/editorialboard

I don’t see the problem. I’d give this paper a fantastic review. I’m not kidding. A little humor is science is a good thing. The only problem I see is that they should have submitted it to a first tier journal. In fact, I’d be honored to OPEN review this paper, just for the fun of it!

In fact, I hereby volunteer to manage and edit an open peer review process on this paper. (Of we’re going to do this, we should stop the authors from actually publishing in the bogus journal bcs then copyright and multiple publication issues may arise. Maybe I’ll write them.)

You don’t see the problem? Have you read the draft? Figures 1 and 2 are not referenced in the main text.

Three things:
1) Beneficiary bank: State Bank of India
2) Editor In Chief: Dr Rishi Asthana, Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering Manglaytan Universirty, India
3) The 2005 paper has got to hold the record for the most self-plagairism within a single article.

Hmm, the journal stated that article was accepted with “minor change”. I would be curious to see the nature of these minor changes.

I think the minor edits were the fact that the F-word was capitalized. So, lower-case f had to be applied throughout.

I mostly agree with you that the ranking of returns by Google scholar by citations helps to place the best at the top. However, I have always felt that this also has some downsides. First, any new good papers that have not yet recieved citations may get missed unless one takes the time to limit the search to recent publications. Second, this feeds into a system that once papers get some traction they get all the citations whereas other papers that are just as relevant get ignored. This tends to overlap with the ‘quality’ of the journals in which the papers are published (which is the point of the whole discussion here). Nonetheless, I know many examples of very similar papers, were one was published in a very good journal and the other in a lower-impact journal, were the high impact journal paper gets all the attention. In an ideal world, both papers would be discovered by online searches, read and cited as appropriate. However, this does not always happen. The quality of the journal can be more important than the quality of the work when it comes to recognition, and Google scholars ranking to just adds to this bias.

The only solution that I can think of it just going back to basic good practices as a scientist. Search multiple databases and read as many articles as you can so that your citations are as accurate and inclusive as you can make them. Reviewers should also review the citations for mistakes and omissions.

Brilliant. Will follow suit, may reduce amount of crap landing in my inbox!
Almost worth the $150 just to get it published and then publicise the fact – I suspect the altmetrics would be good!

Dear sir, can u check also this journal “International journal of computer science engineering and applications. http://airccse.org/journal/ijcsea/index.html“. Thank you.

This journal is published by a company called AIRCC Publishing Corporation. I do have this publisher on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here </a>and recommend that you not submit your work to any of its journals and instead seek out a higher quality publisher.

Dear Daniel,

PNAS-USA is a reputed Journal

http://www.pnas.org/content/by/year/2014

Dear. This journal from India is neither indexed in SCOPUS nor ISI-Thomson. It does charge a fee.
There are many other reputable journals that do not charge any fees at all.

Ironically, I think the reviewer nailed it. This paper is *very* appropriate for publication in this particular journal.

No but my question is that Journal of the Pancreas is now being published by OMICS group. So what is your say in this regard?

[…] a different, and much more light-hearted note, yesterday this happened. (Note that the link is mostly safe for work, but if you have a ginormous monitor open to […]

[…] Open Access has the full story, including links to the typeset manuscript and acceptance message. This is far from the first time […]

Strange – seems like a legitimate journal of 14 years standing and an reasonable Scimago rating that has now been taken on by OMICS and promises ” Review in 3 weeks, Publishing in 72 hours”

Latest Images