This publisher is included on my list here: http://wp.me/P280Ch-u
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on Open-Access Physics Journal Accommodates Authors Blacklisted from arXiv by ishi crew
I’m somewhat a fan of what i call ‘dissident science'; also there may be some overlap between what is ‘wack’ and what isn’t. (Ramanujan used to collect proofs of fermats last theorem i heard;i keep track a bit of quantum hidden variable theories (some of them do get discussed in peer reviewed literature) and disproofs of Cantor’s diagonalization argument).
. Chaos solitons and fractals did publish many respected scientists over the years, though some of this may be ‘resume padding’—some of them just seem to try to publish in as many places as they can, though sometimes also they are trying to get their point of view noticed by a large audience.
(as an aside I took a class with Lee Rudolph long ago on ‘rhyme and reason, partial patterns in math and poetry’).
I think G t Hooft (noble in physics) is on the editorial board of Physics Essays (i dont know why and bet he doesnt read much of it) , and some I believe legitimate people publish there, often because they have some speculative or marginal ideas which may not be what they get paid to do as sceintists (ie they wont be published in standard journals—Newton believed in alchemy, and R Laughlin (noble in physics) i thinks doesn’t believe in the big bang, etc.) A few papers are basically philosophical (and i think could be put in a philo science journal).
Another somewhat weird journal seems to be Electronic J of Theoretical Physics; Kleinart is an editor and from what I know is fairly famous and respected; other people on the board seem to have credentials though I think some are considered cranks (eg M Consoli); I have read stuff by Kitto (also on the board) and actually though a PhD thesis looks more like something in Scientific American dressed up with equations. His thesis advisor has a theory considered discredited.
Apeirion is another great ‘wack’ journal (loaded with proofs that Einstein was wrong, but there are ocassionaly some valid points in there, related to issues of ‘conventionalism’ (Poincare)’, ). .
There are also many papers on arxiv despite some sort of blacklisting process by people with academic jobs with unonventinal ideas (global warming deniers; even Luc Montaigner (AIDS fame) has one on homeopathy with a theoretical physicist who i think is considered somewhat legit—publishes in well known journals.I also think ocassionaly wack theories basically are poorly formalized so after many years they get reconfigured and are seen as either possible or possibly erven true (and sometimes the original idea is not credited). Feigenbaum’s paper on chaos was rejected at first.
↧
Comment on About the Author by The (Fake) Academic Publishing Game - More Is Better Than Less
[…] Vox article also provided a link to a useful listing of suspected predatory publishers created by Jeffrey Beall. Sure enough, my most recent email was from one of the publishers on this […]
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by John Doe
@Jane Doe
>The IC managed to get a contract to maintain technical side of
>Polish research assesment exercise. So many Polish
>publishers consider it a government endorsed & thus
>respectable index.
so shame on your govt.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by OVH SAS
I wonder why you have not added these Predatory Publishers in your list yet
* Plos
* Hindawi
* Elsevier
Hope you know for the bogus journals and nonsense articles in Elsevier, Hindawi and PLOS. Search by google for them
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
These publishers do not meet the criteria for inclusion on my list.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
I cannot figure out a way to stop predatory publishing, so I am trying to alert as many people as I can so they will not be victimized by the corrupt practices of questionable publishers.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Roger Sherman
Again, in the spirit of watching out for each other… The scholarly open-access _journals_ section says it “includes 507 _publishers_.”
Keep up the good work!
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
Fixed, and thank you very much indeed for this correction.
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 | African Studies library
[…] year at this time I formally release my updated list of predatory publishers. Because the list is now very large, and because I now publish four, continuously-updated lists, […]
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 | African Studies library
[…] Misleading metrics companies […]
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 | African Studies library
[…] Hijacked journals […]
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by herr doktor bimler
<i>The CDC report that is referenced uses the word “estimate” </i>
To be fair, the CDC report has "Preliminary estimates ... indicate", so some of the blame lies with their barbarous turn of phrase.
But the wording in the "transmissible" press release does not even brook the ambiguity or uncertainty implicit in 'indicate':
<blockquote>... with over 300,000 new cases <b>diagnosed</b> each year in the United States</blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by Jeffrey Beall
Lida, I agree. I do have this journal included on my list here: http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/
↧
Comment on Research by Jeffrey Beall
It appears that this publisher may be transitioning from subscription access to open-access.
I found one journal that is still a subscription journal but also charges authors.
I found the website difficult to navigate and poorly organized.
This is a low quality publisher, any way you look at it. I would advise authors to find a better publisher, and this should not be too difficult. I need more time to determine whether this publisher belongs on my list or not.
This publisher’s copyright transfer form (yes you have to pay they AND sign over your copyright) is among the strangest I have ever seen.
SUMMARY: Don’t publish here. Find a better publisher.
↧
Comment on More Controversy Over Open-Access Publisher MDPI by wkdawson
Based on the provided link, I don’t find anything on the journal’s web page (i.e., Entropy) saying “This paper attracts great attention. Please refer to our policy regarding possibly controversial articles”.
I do note that it is part of a series ( http://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/special_issues/biosemiotic_entropy ) managed by a guest editor John W Oller who has interest in biosemiotics. It is a rather obscure topic in entropy.
The main argument of the paper is that the glyphosphate attacks bacteria in the gut (there are millions of bacteria in the gut and disfunction in the gut can have serious consequences) and disrupts cytochrome P450 (of which there are many such proteins that are mostly involved with the breakdown of toxic organic molecules). It mostly argues that more real study should be done. I’m not in any position to say much beyond that on how seriously to take the article.
The main thing I would note is that one author (Stephanie Seneff) comes up in 7 out of the 12 articles (all reviews).
As a matter of full disclosure, I have been doing a guest editorship with Entropy. They do find reviewers, and, in my experience, the reviewers have been helpful. However, I find as an editor that even with the aid of the better reviewers, it still requires my own effort to read the article and I usually had to require a variety of important modifications to the manuscript (typically toning the assertions down). I have a feeling that wasn’t done here. At least, I would have required the authors to tone down the claims. The paper does not come across as utter hype, but the tone strikes me as more assertive in some places than it probably should be.
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by Imad Ben
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Beall, I would like to submit my paper in the International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, Hindawi Publisher Corporation here is the url of the journal : http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijdsn/ can you confirm if it’s a good journal or not and Thank you very much.
↧
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by Jeffrey Beall
I do the analyses at the publisher level whenever possible, rather than at the individual journal (there are way too many individual journals). In this case, Hindawi is not on my list.
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by Jeffrey Beall
This is a very low quality and non-standard journal. I have analyzed it and added it to my list. I agree with your observation about the typos, and yes, it does appear on the TR list, a mistake on their part, I think.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by Imad Ben
Thank you for quick response, can you recommend me good journals in the field of the decision making and i will be so greatful and Thanks so much.
↧
