But isn’t that the same list published by “Canadian Center of Science and Education” ..who claim on their website to have existed since 2006 .. although the journal I know only started last year ?
Comment on Open-Access Publisher Launches with 355 New Journals by Stew Green
↧
↧
Comment on Two Print Journals Completely Hijacked by Online Hoodlums by Dr-Farooq Ahmad Gujar
yes i got they are fraud
pure fraud
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Doug Rocks-Macqueen
Thanks for posting about them. I posted awhile back about how they were blog spamming blog posts about Open Access. http://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/predatory-open-access-publisher-omics-publishing-group-hits-new-low-in-blog-spamming/ and here as well http://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/predatory-open-access-publisher-omics-publishing-group-now-blog-spamming/ I actually get a fair amount (10-15 day, a lot for me) of visitors typing into google “OMICS scam” on those posts. Several people have left comments there about the conferences e.g. “OMICS Group Comferences are a SCAM
You are invited to speak, but have to pay for registration.
They ask for multiple payments, claiming they didn’t get it.
Hotel has no record of the conference.
Couldn’t get in touch with organizers after they got the money, except by phone to someone who said they would get back to me but never did (multiple times).
Luckily I canceled beforehand, but of course no refunds.
Avoid OMICS Conferences!”
That was from over a year ago, so they have been at this at least that long.
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by midnightrambler956
Unfortunately it seems that the confusion is all too easy to perpetuate, because a quick Google search shows that there are many people who gave talks at the real ICE meetings but list it on their website/CV as the “International Conference of Entomology”.
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Robin Hood
“I strongly recommend, in the strongest terms possible, that all scholars from all countries avoid doing business in any way with the OMICS Group. Do not submit papers. Do not agree to serve on their editorial boards. Do not register for or attend their conferences.” J. Beall, Jan. 2013. Allow me to translate in simple English: BOYCOTT. Boycotting is legal. Calling for boycotts is legal and organizing or exercising boycotts is legal. Provided that no illegal methods are called for, no criminal activity is conducted against those against which a boycott is called, and provided that the reasons for the boycott are clear and public, it is 100% legal. As a scientific community, we need to start stripping down the walls of stigmas and taboos, especially those that are unfounded, illogical, or uncalled for. A boycott is an excellent way of financially crippling a predator. I have often said that the scientific community is the corner-stone of the profits, and thus the existence, of the predators, even those who hunt in sheep’s clothing. Thus, to boycott one or more aspects of their business would not only be sending a strong and powerful message that the academic community is not on their side, but would also cripple their finances into oblivion, and show share-holders that scientists mean “business”. I support Mr. Beall’s call for a boycott against OMICS (all aspects of their business).
↧
↧
Comment on List of Publishers by The New Face of the Professional Society « The Scholarly Kitchen
[...] Some of the organizations that are imitating PLoS ONE are doing so more vertically; they are identifying specific domains and inviting authors to submit papers (e.g., “ChemistryOpen” from John Wiley). We can imagine an environment where every discipline or subdiscipline of any size has its own author-pays service. Some of these services will be branded with the name of an established publisher or institution, some will be upstarts, and some will be labelled as “predatory” publishers because of the limitations of their peer-review … [...]
↧
Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Dr.Dushyant Nimavat
I have just been approached by this publishing house for the publication of my PHD thesis. I did not know about the company. I inquired about it to some experts who asked me to avoid get into it. I found this link and i am thankful for sharing such a valuable info with us.
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by R V KRISHNAKUMAR
Robin Hood (I firmly believe this name is bogus) has made the statements of Dr.Beall very complex, ironically, in the name of making them simple. Dr.Beall has appropriately used the term ‘avoid’. “Avoid predatory publishers” is the best way to describe how a scholar should deal with them. Possibly the term ‘ignore’ may replace it. These terms reflect the kind of treatment the predators deserve. I feel the term ‘boycott’ is unnecessary and is a ‘misfit’. It sounds uncivilized to see anyone who tries to put his words into others mouth. Learn to learn from others. By the way, what is that ‘walls of stigmas and taboos’ – too much of jugglery of words! Try to share what you know, try not to teach. If you inow more about predatory OA, that is no licence to treat others as kids.
↧
Comment on It’s Time to Reexamine the Tradition of the “Call for Papers” by David
Good job.
However, given you claim you are able to identify predatory journals, I´d like to read a conflict of interest statement in your website.
Do you collaborate with any publisher anyhow?
↧
↧
Comment on It’s Time to Reexamine the Tradition of the “Call for Papers” by imran
I do not agree that the traditional publishers were not predatory. They too are and had been predatory. There, one may find more plagriasm in research journals as to day in OA journals and more if will be seen in terms of percentage.output.
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Schmuck
Ok, what is the difference between ignore and boycott. You ignore somebody existence and you do not do business with them. It sounds like boycotting to me.
OMICS (I think it stands for Oh My Ignorant Crazy Schmucks) are that bad and do whatever you think is right, ignore them or boycott them and make sure to spread the word among your colleagues about them.
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Robin Hood
Schmuck. Not such a schmuck, actually! Words of wisdom, I think. Or at least words of reality. I wonder if Schmuck is your REAL name or if Mr. Krishnakumar is just an overly sensitized Indian who can’t tell the difference between critique and euphemisms and who is also going to demand that you reveal your identity while forgetting the importance of anonymity. Anonymity, in this day of Big Brother, Mr. Krishnakumar, is essential to smoke out the frauds from their rabbit holes. Schmuck is correct, no doubt, about what OMICS stands for, and thus I second his opinion to boycott the bunch of schmucks at OMICS. As for Mr. Krishnakumar’s naivety, let me tell you, don’t be fooled by the intentions of the fraudsters in OA predatory publishing: they’re out to GET YOUR money. So, I suggest you re-change your word “ignore” to “counter-attack”, because you are CLEARLY failing to understand who is the victim, but we can understand this mentality within your cultural backdrop. By ignoring a problem does not fix this: psychology 101. Tackling the problems, using forceful means if necessary, is what cleans up the mess. But that is my opinion, of course, using my anonymous name, unless you can indicate where Robin Hood lives, if not in the Sherwood Forest… As for funding that scientists use to attend these fake congresses, we have to start asking the question: whose money is being used to transport and accomodate scientists in these meetings? Dirty money?
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Ken
I’ve attended two OMICS conferences, and the organizers gave me a speaker discount. Even at some “legitimate” conferences, it is unfortunately not unheard of to pay registration, travel, etc., as a speaker. Since I am a junior faculty member, I found the OMICS conferences to be moderately poorly run and yet low-cost options for getting some speaking experience under my belt, and several productive collaborations have arisen from them. This is in contrast to the well-known megameetings that are often dominated by several key labs and their offshoots, where junior and relatively unknown investigators may have difficulty obtaining talks or making useful connections. So while I deplore OMICS’ ridiculous journals, their post-conference badgering of speakers to submit papers for fees, and the other questionable practices that Dr. Beall exposes, I think that there may actually be a place for lower tier pay-to-play conferences like theirs that bring junior scientists together. It’s really too bad that OMICS hasn’t done a better job of providing a service to this market.
↧
↧
Comment on It’s Time to Reexamine the Tradition of the “Call for Papers” by the seeker
I am an American Studies guy working on the Problem of Evil in contemporary US horror fiction and live in semi-rural India. I go a lot by what you write here and thanks for the service you do to us in way of listing spam-journals and predatory cabals. I’d say you might think of listing a few sites which screen for good call for papers. The CFP at UPenn does not discriminate , neither does papersinvited nor even the MLA. LOL. So where does one go to write on say, insanity and horror lit within the emerging field of medical humanities?
↧
Comment on It’s Time to Reexamine the Tradition of the “Call for Papers” by Sylvain Bernès
I’m regularly flooded with spam related to “calls for paper(s)”, and received last year roughly 1000 such “invitations” (ca. 3 each day). This is really disappointing, because ALL invitations were completely ridiculous: topics were very very far from my field, my name is almost systematically misspelled, and, in the case of Bentham, the mails indicate an affiliation I left 8 years ago… A new strategy which appeared recently is to post in the same mail the call for papers AND the invitation to join the editorial board AND the invitation to guest edit a special issue.
Good old days have gone. Before (I mean 20 years ago), it was a great pleasure to met John Gladysz, editor for Chemical Reviews, and to comment personally with him what was planned for future issues of the journal (regardless of who was eventually invited to submit a review). Now, all is bullsh…
↧
Comment on Did Dr. Krashen Commit Self-Plagiarism? by Jeffrey Beall
I mostly check for plagiarism manually, searching phrases in Google or Bing. Occassionally, I use <a href="http://dupeoff.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">DupeOff</a>.
↧
Comment on Did Dr. Krashen Commit Self-Plagiarism? by Frank Lu
Ithenticate
↧
↧
Comment on Did Dr. Krashen Commit Self-Plagiarism? by moom
In my opinion this small amount of overlap between ones own papers is totally acceptable. As long as a paper has significant new results there are likely to be overlaps in review of the literature, introductory material, and some methods. The problem is when basically the same entire paper is published again. Here one point from another paper is repeated. So he could have rephrased it but so what, why bother?
↧
Comment on Did Dr. Krashen Commit Self-Plagiarism? by Alberto
Dear Prof. Beall, would you consider the Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research as a predatory journal? Krashen, Byram, Cook and Kramsch are very prominent scholars, and the journal seems serious to me. Besides, they do not change authors.
↧
Comment on Did Dr. Krashen Commit Self-Plagiarism? by David Solomon
Thank you for providing a very thoughtful response that in my view is right on target.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
