Try using one of these services;
Edanz Journal Selector = <a href="http://www.edanzediting.com/journal_selector" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.edanzediting.com/journal_selector</a>
Elsevier Journal Finder = <a href="http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/</a>
Good luck.
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by Imad Ben
Thank you so much Mr. Jeffrey for all your effort and for helping me too.
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by How to know if a journal is to be trusted? | Poisoned Coffee
[…] Here there are two excellent lists of journals not to be trusted and publishers with questionable practices (lists have respectable 507 and 693 entries). Ideally, one should think twice before submitting to any of the journals/publishers in these lists. Also there is a list for misleading journal metrics. […]
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by peer
Of interest, Raphael B. Stricker, the corresponding author, falsified data in a NIH grant application and NEJM paper:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not93-177.html
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by wkdawson
” if the name of the reviewer will be known to the authors, will a young postdoc desparate to get their next grant which will make or break their career dare to produce a negative review of the paper of a very influential person in the field who is known to sit on the grant committee? ”
Would it be wise for a young postdoc to agree with a poor paper or even an idea that is wrong when his/her name is also listed? If the paper is rubbish, a praising review or a worthless review is also there for all to see.
In general, this sort of thing is called conflict of interest. A reviewer should bow out if there is no way to be objective and reviews should be written to help the authors either understand how to fix a manuscript or why the manuscript is inappropriate. The author should also has the right to defend himself/herself — also for all to see.
Conflict of interest is a major problem within the peer review process presently: politicians in lab coats who get away with murder and, likewise, authors who meddle with references and list other people in their cable who will generate favourable reviews to unwitting editors. This is not a problem unique to OA, I know an editor in the “reader pays” system who also runs up against this from time to time. What seems most lacking presently in the system is transparency in the review process.
At least if the names are given, nobody can hide or cover their behind like the current system.
↧
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by herr doktor bimler
In the manuscript, Dr. Stricker selectively suppressed data that did not support his hypothesis, and reported consistently positive data whereas only one of four experiments had produced positive results. In the publication, Dr. Stricker reported that an antibody was found in 29 of 30 homosexuals, but not found in non-homosexuals. However, Dr. Stricker”s control data, which he suppressed, showed the antibody in 33 of 65 non-homosexuals. The falsified data was used as the basis for a grant application to the National Institutes of Health.
Well-spotted!
↧
Comment on Is Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) Publishing Pseudo-Science? by William Yerger
Is Information Age Publishing a predator company? I’ve been asked to write a chapter on Bullying as I have published in that area.
↧
Comment on Is Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) Publishing Pseudo-Science? by Jeffrey Beall
I have not analyzed that publisher. It’s not an open-access publisher, and I limit my work to OA.
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by Morning Break: Shooting At VA Clinic, Priapism Patient Sues Docs | Medical 24/7 News
[…] Sexually transmitted Lyme disease? Uh, not so fast. […]
↧
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by J.J.
Post-publication peer review is very useful as long as it happens after and additionally to the regular peer-review. Recent events show how critical it can be to sort good science from junk that has been missed in the pre-publication round of review.
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by Jeffrey Beall
Okay, now I think I understand. There is a journal on my standalone journals list entitled Magnt Research Report. However, this is not a predatory journal. Instead, it is a legitimate journal that has been hijacked.
The legitimate journal is chiefly a print journal rather than an online journal, and it is irregular. It does not have a strong web presence.
I will remove this title from my standalone journals list and put it in my hijacked journals list.
The title confused me. I thought “Magnt” was an abbreviation for “management.” However, it really means “Museums & Art Galleries of the Northern Territory.”
Is my understanding correct? Thank you, Lida, for all your help and patience.
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by Alex SL
wkdawson,
All points well taken, but the “at least” part works just as well the other way around: At least under the current system one can write an openly negative review without fearing career-damaging repercussions.
The thing is that all approaches – OA or reader pays, open review or anonymous review, pre-pub or post-pub review – come with their own sets of good and bad incentives and dynamics. I am not happy with the traditional system either; if you ask me all publishers should be non-profit public utilities. What annoys me are all those people who will blithely ignore the downsides of their favourite new approach until it is too late.
The current system, as problematic as it is, was not built overnight as the conspiracy of a sinister cabal, instead it evolved into its current shape because it demonstrably worked to filter out most crap science and to give people a heuristic for where the good papers in their field can be found. When it is dismantled in a burst of over-enthusiastic creative destruction, new problems will be introduced that would, at this stage, be entirely avoidable if one were more careful.
↧
Comment on Anti-Roundup (Glyphosate) Researchers Use Easy OA Journals to Spread their Views by Jeffrey Beall
They’re not doing a legitimate peer review; that’s the problem. OA publishers want to earn as much money as possible so they accept unscientific papers and then pocket the author fees. MDPI published eight papers from this author in two years.
↧
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by Alex SL
wkdawson,
Yet the fact that an unscrupulous author can retaliate is a sign that the system is badly corrupted.
Sorry, but I believe that that is naive. Proud and unreasonable people will exist under any possible system.
I don’t see how this would be fixed by making all publications non-profit utilities
I pointed out myself that there are three toally independent issues: whether review should be anonymous, when review should take place, and whether journals should be OA. This remark was merely meant to indicate that for all my skepticism about hasty changes I am not a blind believer in “they way it is now is totally awesome”; and the thing is that while this would be a simple solution to the price-gouging going on at the moment, I do not see a simple fix-all for the review process.
↧
Comment on Fake ISI Aims to Trick the Scholarly Community by Reporte Ciencia UANL » Ciencia pirata
[…] bien: recientemente se descubrió la existencia de una institución fraudulenta que se hace llamar “Institute for Science […]
↧
Comment on Anti-Roundup (Glyphosate) Researchers Use Easy OA Journals to Spread their Views by herr doktor bimler
later coauthored a publication with Seneff that made heavy use of references from the “special edition”.
Is that this paper in the “Journal of Toxicology”?
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2014/491316/
The other co-authors belong to the ‘Aluminati’, and are familiar names to readers of ‘Respectful Insolence’.
↧
Comment on Anti-Roundup (Glyphosate) Researchers Use Easy OA Journals to Spread their Views by herr doktor bimler
A case in point is the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry from the Elsevier stable. Seems reputable enough, but they have published guest-edited Special Issues such as this one in 2011:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01620134/105/11
— guest-edited by Chris Exley, an aluminium-causes-everything anti-vaccine obsessive (and Seneff co-author), and packed with papers every bit as egregious as the open-access examples.
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by HANI
Hi Mr Jeffrey,,
I would like to ask about The Journal of Water Resources and Protection. The publisher is Scientific research Publishing
My regards
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by wkdawson
Alex: I think we are largely on the same page on the issues here.
It certainly has not been a career advancing experience to have told a few big kahunas the truth in my case. On the other hand, though hackneyed to say so, one learns through such hard experiences that good people are not the product of upbringing, ethnic or cultural identity, but of individual character. These are just words until one lives them and keeps having to rediscover them with new faces.
For me, it is not exactly being naive; rather, it is being (perhaps too much of) an idealist.
There are advantages to pessimism. After all, pessimists are actually optimists because they are never disappointed. :-)
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
I recommend that all researchers NOT submit their work to the journals published by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP). I recommend that you find a better publisher. Good luck!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
