I have analyzed this journal but will not be adding it to my list at this time.
While it doesn’t meet the criteria for inclusion on my list, I don’t think it is a strong journal and would recommend that potential submitters seek out a stronger venue for their work. Good luck.
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Keith Fraser
Hi Jeffrey,
Another journal which came to my attention via someone on LinkedIn mentioning having published his research there: the International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences, published by Fundamental Journals. It has all the hallmarks of a dodgy journal: rampant English errors (“Does One-Way Speed of Light is Constant?”), a bewildering array of disciplines, and sketchy-sounding research (e.g. this is a paper by the person who brought it up: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/87003821/earth-cosmic-harmonic-factor ).
↧
Comment on Clueless Reporter from the Mirror Bases Story on Withdrawn OMICS Publishing Group Article by OMICS - made in India
Maybe now the UK Government will wake up and start to crack down on “start-ups” in OA publishing in the UK, many of which are started by foreign nationals (particularly of Indian, Bangladeshi, and Iranian descent). When will governments start to appreciate that fake, pseudo and nonsense science published in such journals which aim to pump out as such rubbish as possible with no quality control, pose a real danger to society? Until now, the risks highlighted on this blog and at Retraction Watch have focused almost exclusively on the impact on science, but now we are seeing wider effects, such as the corruption of Google Scholar, “reputable” data-bases, like those owned by Thomson Reuters and Elsevier, and now the reliance of “journalists” on information which – under their apparent professional judgment – is sound and “accepted by the scientific community.” In the space of only a few years, the corrupted OA community has been able to put to shame potentially decades or even centuries of dedicated work by traditional print STM publishers. How can we fix this plague? When will the Indian government react to the predatory OA publishers emerging from Hyderabad? When will the Canadian government react to CSSE? When will the US government react to the predatory OA publishers that use hubs like Delaware to set up a pseudo-address to feign being American?
↧
Comment on Clueless Reporter from the Mirror Bases Story on Withdrawn OMICS Publishing Group Article by Microbiome digest, December 2, 2014 | Microbiome Digest – Bik's Picks
[…] Clueless Reporter from the Mirror Bases Story on Withdrawn OMICS Publishing Group Article – Jeffrey Beall – ScholaryOA […]
↧
Comment on Clueless Reporter from the Mirror Bases Story on Withdrawn OMICS Publishing Group Article by herr doktor bimler
Sounds like the usual case of Busby writing the press release first, then the manuscript.
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
Keith: Thanks very much indeed for letting me know about this publisher. I have added it to my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. As you indicate, there is lots of sketchy-sounding research among this publisher's three journals. It appears to be a place for Iranian researchers to get a quick and easy publication. Thank you again.
↧
Comment on Serbian Journal Accepts Paper in 24 Hours with No Peer Review, Demands EUR 1785 by Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Update with verbatim e-mails (unedited, except for e-mail addresses, whihc have been deleted).
On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 5:20 PM:
“Dear Dr. Goran Poznanović,
Editor-in-Chief, ABS
NOTE: to all those contacted, any communication held before November 29, 2014 between me and ABS may be requested. I consider this to be a matter of public importance, and thus for maximum transparency, all documents that are available, can be provided.
Thank you for that rapid rejection of the paper, within 24 hours. Even more so, after the expert opinion of three peers. I would be curious to know who those peers were that are expert in tissue culture of the Cycadaceae. I certainly could not find any experts on your editor board. Perhaps you would be so kind, while the information is still fresh in your mind, of indicating who the three experts were. My colleagues and I are quite happy to receive a valid and professional rejection, but we would like the proof. And, in such a case, the proof lies in the critique offered by the peer reviewers.
You are right about the manuscript category. I did notice even short papers that are traditionally considered to be short communications are lumped together with large papers at ABS, e.g., Vol 66(4), page 1641. I should note that our manuscript was perfectly formatted to ABS, so in essence you have wasted our precious time with unscholarly and pedantic requests.
I consider this, however, to be a very positive development since a rejection based on peer review within 24 hours is always better than an acceptance with an extortionary fee of 1785 EUR within the same time period.
Or perhaps, as I am beginning to think, you may suddenly have recalled that it was I, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, the person who formally complained about ABS in June 2014, and caused the entire editor board to resign, that sparked the 24-hour rejection. After all, the incident has been recorded for history to judge:
Considering that in fact, peer review at ABS is not blind or even double-blind would it be fair to say that my assumption is correct, or at least highly plausible, and that in fact, it is impossible to get a fair peer review at ABS, even if I wanted to, and even if the research was worthwhile, simply because there is now a permanent, engrained conflict of interest?
Incidentally, we are almost 6 months after the “incident” with Prof. Božidar Ćurčić, the former EIC, yet, despite the serious claims of massive plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and gaming of the impact factor, I still notice that not a single erratum, expression of concern, or retraction (* except for a publisher-induced gaffe) appears for a single paper between 2010 and 2014 (http://archonline.bio.bg.ac.rs/). Isn’t that odd? How much time will you need to correct the academic fraud that has been published in your journal, Dr. Poznanović?
* Actually, a retraction was incorrectly published as an erratum in Arch. Biol. Sci., Belgrade, 66 (4), 1689-1689, 2014:
DOI: 10.2298/ABS1404689U
Erratum to: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF COI GENE OF IXODES RICINUS (LINNAEUS, 1758) FROM SERBIA; Sanja Ćakić, Miljana Mojsilović, D. Mihaljica, Marija Milutinović, A. Petrović and Snežana Tomanović
DOI: 10.2298/ABS1403243C
published in the ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, BELGRADE Vol. 66, No. 3, 2014 due to a printing error.
The same paper has already been published in the ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, BELGRADE Vol. 66, No. 2, 2014 (DOI:10.2298/ABS1402683C).
You have failed abysmally in keeping your promise, made on July 30, 2014, at 5:55 PM.
And when will Thomson Reuters stop rewarding fraudulent and non-academic pseudo-scholarly journals like Archives of Biological Science that conduct fake-review rather than peer review, and that seem to enjoy maintaining corrupted literature that is filled with self-plagiarism and plagiarism? Does this say more about Serbia, about Abs, or about Thomson Reuters? Incidentally: JCR IF 2013 = 0.607 Not bad considering that there is a strong likelihood that no, weak, or fake peer review may have or continue to be taking place in your journal.
Why does DOAJ continue to list your journal?
http://doaj.org/toc/2325cffeabea445a988aac5f626844d6
Of course it is highly likely that neither you nor your band of pseudo-academics that have been put in place to defend the image of Serbia, will respond, and once again, I am forced to post my claims and concerns publically.
May I advise, as a mere bleb of the plant science community, that you and your journal get your act together. Because unless you shape up this pseudo peer review, and unless you retract every single paper that was published in ABS that was accepted automatically without peer review, or that is filled with self-plagiarism or plagiarism, you will continue to inflict damage on the good name of Serbian scientists and on the image of your country, by being passive, and without demonstrating transparency.
This is actually quite important because your current, “improved and updated” Instructions for authors states clearly:
http://archonline.bio.bg.ac.rs/uputstvo.pdf (page 1)
“Articles are subjected to a three-tier pass-process: articles that meet the basic format and manuscript organization requirements will be subjected to plagiarism screening to identify misused text. Only articles that pass these two steps will be forwarded for peer review to independent referees from the area of research of the submitted manuscript. The authors can also suggest the names of three referees with email addresses, briefly explaining why they think the suggested scientists would be good referees.”
That suggests that you are employing contradictory and false double-standards, one for yourselves, and one fake one for your authorship.
I look forward to submitting a manuscript in 2015. I will allow a few months to pass before I submit to allow for deeper reflection and a true reform to take place.
I am confident that you will understand the importance of dealing with this issue immediately.
Sincerely,
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 5:55 PM, Dusko Blagojevic wrote:
Dear de Silva,
thank You for suggestions and comments. We will inform of each step that is taken to address the issues You raised in Your letter.
Sincerely,
Dusko Blagojevic
From: Jaime
To: Dusko Blagojevic ; Thomsn Reuters
Cc: Sipka + Beall
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 17:16
Subject: Queries: new Governing Board, Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of the ABS
Dear Dr. Dusko Blagojevic and Dr. Goran Poznanovic,
At the outset, I wish to thank you for copying me on your message to Thomson Reuters and to Jeffrey Beall.
I consider this to be a very positive development for ABS and a hopeful sign for Serbian science and research. I wish you well in your new positions and hope that you are ready to take on the complex challenges that science publishing entails nowadays.
However, before entering any celebratory mood, I have some lingering concerns and questions about ABS. I would be grateful if you could please provide a formal response to these queries, and then also copy that statement publically, at Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/07/serbian-journal-lands-in-hot-water-after-challenge-on-24-hour-peer-review-that-cost-1785-euros/) and Beall’s blog (http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/06/12/serbian-journal-accepts-paper-in-24-hours-with-no-peer-review-demands-eur-1785/).
Basically, the scientific community would like to know how you plan to be transparent about the academic activities of this journal in the future, but also how you plan to address the academic irregularities from the past.
The specific queries I have are as follows:
a) It appears as if no peer review has in fact taken place at ABS. It is unclear for which manuscripts, and for how long this might have been taking place. How can you prove that the papers let’s say from the past 3 years (2011-2014) have been peer reviewed, given the instant acceptance for a fee provided by your predecessor, Prof. Božidar Ćurčić? Would ABS be willing to provide the peer reviewers’ reports upon request for any paper in this period, or better yet, post all peer reports as an open access file for each paper published in this period?
b) Will you formally retract any papers that have not been peer reviewed? This includes papers by Prof. Božidar Ćurčić, his son and daughter and other colleagues who are accused of nepotism.
c) How will you address the manipulation of citations and self-citations that were used to boost your impact factor? Will those papers that manipulated reference lists be retracted?
d) Between 2010 and 2014, there were numerous cases o plagiarism and self-plagiarism, some extremely serious. Will those papers be retracted? If those papers are not retracted, the message that will ultimately be sent is that ABs embraces, encourages and supports plagiarism, self-plagiarism and serious academic misconduct.
e) How will you address the issue of predatory fees for no peer review, i.e., pay-for-publish model?
f) Will you refund those authors who paid fees but had no academic input or peer review for their papers, including all papers that are apparently queued for publication until mid-2015?
g) Will you inform all authors that published in ABS between 2010-2014 of these problems and your solutions?
h) Please provide a timetable by which you plan to achieve these objectives, how you plan to address each of the 7 points listed above, and most importantly, who are the individuals who will be leading this effort and taking formal responsibility moving forward?
I and the wider biological science community look forward to a formal response to these queries, to seeing these issues resolved, and to seeing a public disclosure of acceptance of these past and future responsibilities so that trust can be reclaimed and so that scientists can feel comfortable in submitting papers to ABS, confident in its ethical, transparent and academic posture.
Sincerely,
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
On Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:13 AM, Dusko Blagojevic wrote:
Dear Sir/Madam,
In light of recent events involving the Archives of Biological Sciences (ABS), Belgrade, at a meeting of the Serbian Biological Society on 17 July, 2014, the resignations of the President/Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Dr. Bozidar Curcic and members of the Editorial Board of the ABS were accepted. At the same meeting, the Society elected a new President and members of the Governing Board, Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of the ABS, as well as a new President of the Society.
Members of the Serbian Biological Society expressed their unanimous expectation that the newly elected individuals strictly adhere to their commitment to uphold all the principles, ethical standards and good practice of scientific publishing.
In the hope of your understanding and continued support of the ABS, we remain,
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dusko Blagojevic, President of the Governing Board of the ABS,
Dr. Goran Poznanovic, Editor-in-Chief, ABS”
↧
Comment on Icelandic Journal Latest Victim of Journal Hijacking by anbu
Hello,
I have submitted one article to http://jokulljournal.is/ few months ago and I have accepted letter. is a fake journal? or tie up with others.
How is i believed it?
.
Thank you,
↧
Comment on Icelandic Journal Latest Victim of Journal Hijacking by Jeffrey Beall
Jokull Journal = http://www.jokulljournal.com/ = Fake
Jökull = http://jokulljournal.is/ = Authentic
↧
↧
Comment on More Controversy Over Open-Access Publisher MDPI by Bleu
Actually, in the abstract, the authors state “… and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins”. I accepted that link as substantially relevant to the journal
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Deepak
Dear Mr Beall,
Thought you might find this interesting. I have received two invitations to review the same manuscript from two different journals.
The first is from Modern Research Publishers for their journal ‘Journal of Scientific Research and Studies’.
The second is from International Invention Journals for their journal
‘International Journal of Environmental science and toxicology (IJEST)’
Both these invitations were received the same day and both publishers figure on your list.
Are the two publishers linked or is it a case of duplicate submission by the author, I wonder?
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
Amazing.
My university is now (perhaps wisely) blocking access to Modern Research Publishers, so I can’t tell if the two are related or owned by the same guy.
I think that ownership of multiple open-access imprints is increasingly common. It costs almost nothing to set up a new one.
Thank you for sharing this.
↧
Comment on OMICS Publishing Group’s Abuse of Researchers: More Evidence by Leslie
So is your paper published? or did they take the money and did not publish your manuscript?
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
Thank you for letting me know about this journal. I have analyzed it and added it to my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
↧
Comment on Backlog by Jeffrey Beall
I’ve added all these journals to my list. They all say, “Author Notification : Within 7 days”. Thanks for alerting me to them.
↧
Comment on Shabby Indian Management Megajournal Reveals Its Peer Review Process by jshrager
English is the defacto international standard scientific language. There is precedent for standard languages. For example, English has been the formal standard aviation language for years. Moreover, there are specific English proficiency requirements for any pilot or controller involved in international flight:
http://www.englishforaviation.com/ICAO-requirements.php
“All Air Traffic Controllers and Flight Crew Members engaged in or in contact with international flights must be proficient in the English language as a general spoken medium and not simply have a proficiency in standard ICAO Radio Telephony Phraseology. Those who do not have English proficiency must acquire it, or risk removal from international flight routes.”
Since communication is a central function of science, and is THE central function of writing scientific papers, I don’t see any problem with requiring proficiency in the international standard scientific language in order to be published, just as international pilots and controllers are required to have proficiency in the standard aviation language in order to be certified.
↧
Comment on New OA Publisher “Pubicon International Publications” Launches with 14 Journals by Pubic?
The publisher’s name sounds terrible because it engenders the image of uncontrollable pubic hair. Which, of course has nothing to do with publishing. Seems like there is intra-India competition between Bhopal and Hyderabad.
↧
↧
Comment on New OA Publisher “Pubicon International Publications” Launches with 14 Journals by Riaan Stals
I haven’t seen this before: a section on ‘CITATION MANIPULATION’. A haphazardly chosen example from one of the Pubicon magazines is here: http://www.iaasr.org/Default.aspx?pageid=11.
Citation manipulation, in many forms, is undoubtedly an inherent aspect of predatory publication. The Pubicon magazines do not define this malpractice in any useful way, but threatens with “severe” punitive measures should an author be [found] guilty of citation manipulation.
(a) Not that I believe it will ever actually happen.
(b) Punishment only for those wishing to publish in one of the journals issued by this, what they call themselves elsewhere, “Publishing House”.
↧
Comment on New OA Publisher “Pubicon International Publications” Launches with 14 Journals by Riaan Stals
Not that I know anything about Phenomenology …
The ‘Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology’ may have an unusual geographic scope, but that is explained on the journal’s “About” page http://www.ipjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=2 , and it seems to be an above-board journal continuously published since 2001.
Why, why, why then, is there a link to this journal on the Pubicon website http://www.pubicon.org/APUIIR.aspx?cmd=South%20Africa ?
↧
Comment on New OA Publisher “Pubicon International Publications” Launches with 14 Journals by Nils
They sure have crossed the Pubicon of bad taste.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
