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

Comment on Why Researchers Should Avoid the Clute “Institute” by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I will not be comparing and contrasting the two publishers; I will only be analyzing ASBBS in light of the established criteria.
Also, if the journal is open-access, then its distribution is not limited … not sure what you mean.


Comment on Why Researchers Should Avoid the Clute “Institute” by Neal

0
0

Sorry about that – I meant that the physical distribution of the hard copy “journals” is very limited. Obviously, in today’s world, it is quite easy to have open-access with “online” versions – which then begs the question about why one would need to pay $50 per page? I appreciate what you are trying to do. Best wishes!

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0
I have the Academicians’ Research Center (ARC) included on my list of questionable publishers, so I recommend that you not submit papers to any of its journals. You have three journals listed after ARC. Two of these are published by ARC, <em>International Journal of Scientific and Innovative Mathematical Research</em> and <em>International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research</em>, so I recommend that you <strong>NOT </strong>submit papers to these two journals. The other journal you mention, <em>Applied Mathematics and Mechanics</em> (English Edition), is not on my list. It is a respected journal. Good luck!

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by AA

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

Comment on Fake ISI Aims to Trick the Scholarly Community by J.J.

0
0

That would only be true if science was not primarily conducted by state-sponsored institutions where the decision to spend the money is not taken by the ones who earned it. Academia is anything but a free market.

Comment on Fake ISI Aims to Trick the Scholarly Community by Арнольд Бренер

0
0

Dear Jeffrey,

I would be very grateful if you could give unbiassed information about Europäische Akademie der Naturwisseschaften in Hannover. The point is that I have a reason for some doubts. May be I am mistaken.  

Best regards,

Arnold

Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:01:21 +0000 от Scholarly Open Access : >Jeffrey Beall posted: ”

I recently learned of an impostor website for Journal Citation Reports, the product marketed by Thomson Reuters, and the successor of the Institute of Scientific Information. The impostor calls itself the “Institute for Science Information.”

Th” >

Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Gu Fu

0
0

Dear Lorenzo,

My own experience with MDPI can be resumed by what Lachezar Filchev said on February 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM (see commentS above).

I quote: “I see here the main issue with the MDPI. It is in their strategy or tactics to get credits from established authors’ reputation at no cost while making huge profits from not-that-well-established ones. I am not ashamed to admit that I am not an established author so far – because it can be checked on the Internet. However, obviously the publisher approach is two-fold. In the case of ‘Remote Sensing’ journal for instance there are numerous established scholars who publish in MDPI, so one who thinks (as I thought before): ‘Those guys are there – that means this journal is OK, it is safe and I am going to publish in it. Moreover it is OpenAccess and it is fairly cheap to publish.’ (this is how it goes in reality) is doomed. The truth is that the glossy facade (made from good to mediocre articles by established scholars) is only for those who guess the entity by its look…So, say it plain – the politics of MDPI is: ‘be generous and open to the one in power and mean and brutal to the one who are not in the top ten of the cited authors of SCOPUS, Thomson Reuters and alike’. Therefore, the controversy here is plain – we have a clever man behind this publishing house who knows how to use scientists’ intention to publish in a reputable journal“.


Comment on Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers by Gu Fu

0
0

I have so far, had three experiences with MDPI, all of which were negative.

First, as an author: I am a plant physiologist by training and my most recent project involved quantifying the effect of climate change on plant metabolites. During that exercise, I noticed that there was no information available on the quantification of some secondary metabolites in some cereals seeds. By definition, this is not plant physiology, but food science. Well, I decided to write something on the subject and publish it. Since it was a spin-off publication of my project, I did not want to waste time going through several rounds of review in journals whose only acceptance criterion is perceived importance/novelty and not the science behind the research. I confided with a friend and he recommended the recently MDPI launched journal “Foods”. I submitted my manuscript to the journal and received three reviews: an insightful and two mediocre reviews. The latter reviewers focused only on the manuscript format and when asked about the language, they all selected “Extensive editing of English language and style required “, whereas the first reviewer selected” English language and style are fine”. That’s where I started getting the feeling that something was not correct. My native language is not English, but I did all my studies in English-speaking countries, defended my bachelor, master and PhD thesis in English and so far I have published 18 peer-reviewed papers in English. I always make sure before sending a document for peer-review, to have it read by my co-authors who are mostly native-speakers, and at least one colleague. It was the first time a reviewer felt that my manuscript needed an extensive language editing.

I again consulted with my co-authors and colleagues, and they found no problem with the language. In my reply, I rebutted the accusations. At the time, in 2013, publication fees have been waived, apparently it is MDPI policy for new journals. I submitted the paper during the Christmas holidays and received the reviewers’ comments a week later. When I sent back my reply to the comments in January 2014, the journal informed me that I had to pay a publication fee, which was instated in 2014. Furthermore, all the three reviewers now recommended an extensive language editing, without mentioning specific language problems. You can imagine how surprised I was: The first reviewer who said the English was fine now was recommending extensive editing.

All this time, I never had to deal with any of the journal’s editors: Each time, I corresponded with a Chinese secretary from China. When asked to know where exactly the language problem was, the secretary pointed at a sentence in a manuscript, “12 out of 30″, and said it was not proper English. Of course, she will ask me each time to pay for language editing. And when asked why pay a 2014 fee for a paper submitted in 2013, she replied that all revisions received in 2014 are considered as new submissions.

I immediately realized that there was something fishy in all this, and asked that the manuscript be withdrawn from the review process. That’s when she decided to put me in touch with the editor. Curiously, another Chinese guy contacted me and introduced itself as the editor-in-chief, while on the website, it is said that the editor-in-chief is Prof. Christopher J. Smith from the UK. I back-out and the paper was recently published in a respectable journal after going through two lengthy rounds of thoughtful reviews.

Second, as a reviewer: I recently reviewed a paper for a journal and recommended rejection. The document was so poorly written, with no statistics, several wrong statements about the physiology of plants; most of the conclusions were not supported by the results. Only a month later, I found the article published in the MDPI journal “Molecules” without any change (I insist on this), except for the language that had been significantly improved.

Finally, as a reader: I had to read several articles published in “Molecules”, “International Journal of Molecular Science”. And each time, I could not help but wonder how these articles could have been published without anyone noticing that they were so flawed and out of the journal scope. I found an author who has published more than a dozen of articles in the journal “Molecules”, spanning a period of three years (4 articles related to plant physiology per year in the same journal). The similarity between these articles is so flagrant. One has the impression that the author only recycles old results and texts, not to mention their pseudoscience nature and their inappropriateness for the journal’s scope.

I recognize that this is a personal experience with three MDPI journals and so it would be exaggerated to make generalizations. But my impression is that there is no editorial control at MDPI and the decision to accept or reject a paper is the sole authority of a secretary and the reviewers recommended by the authors.

Comment on New OA Publisher “Pubicon International Publications” Launches with 14 Journals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Thanks for letting me know about this publisher. I have analyzed it and added it to my list. While analyzing it, I discovered another similar one that copies much of the website text, Access Journals. These two and many others are being template-launched by someone in Delta State, Nigeria. I strongly recommend against serving on their editorial boards or submitting papers to them. Thanks again.

Comment on Fake ISI Aims to Trick the Scholarly Community by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Hi, Arnold,
I generally limit my work to publishers of scholarly journals. I don’t see that this society has a journal publishing program. If I am missing it, please can you send me the link? Thanks, Jeffrey Beall

Comment on Fake ISI Aims to Trick the Scholarly Community by Marco

0
0

I would stay away from that organization. Outside information on it is available in German, and it doesn’t look very promising. It apparently works closely together with the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, which counts amongst its members creationists, spirit healers, and other cranks (for lack of a better word). Information in Russian here, I assume it is a faithful translation of the German version:

http://goo.gl/YCM0zO

Information on the European Academy of Natural Sciences is only availabe in German:

http://goo.gl/iWzYIA

If it is correct that it provides a “Hahnemann” medal, it is clearly a pseudoscientific organization: Hahnemann is the founder of homeopathy.

Hope this helps.

Comment on Open-Access Publisher Offers to Waive Fees, But There’s an Unethical Catch by Weekend reads: Maggie Simpson publishes a paper, why correcting the scientific record is hard - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

0
0

[…] your article processing charges waived? No problem, just cite our journals’ studies in your other papers, says […]

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jessy

Comment on About the Author by Quand Google favorise la « pollution scientifique |«Du bruit et de l'oubli

0
0

[…] formule est de Jeffrey Beall , bibliothécaire à l’Université du Colorado à Denver qui est l’auteur d’un […]


Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Quand Google favorise la « pollution scientifique |«Du bruit et de l'oubli

0
0

[…] de « prédateurs ». Or , selon lui, en référençant tous ces articles , Google Scholar est rempli de « junk science » comme on parle de « junk food » . On pourrait donc dire que celle-ci est à […]

Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Lidia

0
0

Hello to everyone! I am green graduating masters student and after a conference I’ve sent them a paper. After what I was informed about a fee which is too much for me. So it appeared suspicious to me and I found your post (thank you). I really need your advice – what should I do in order to protect my intellectual property?

Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Did you transfer the copyright to the conference organizer/publisher? If so, you should ask them to formally transfer it back to you. If not, you may still hold the rights.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Sunday B.

0
0

Hello Jeffrey
I wish to submit a manuscript to one of the journals in American Research Institute for policy development. Please comment about the publisher.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I would recommend that you find a better publisher for your work.

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images