Yes, this journal is included on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on OMICS Group Aims to Trick Researchers with Copycat Journal Titles by Barbara Goldman
OMICS has been soliciting manuscripts using ASM’s Journal of Clinical Microbiology title. Our IP attorney has sent cease-and-desist letters to no avail. We are getting many emails from JCM authors and editors who are confused by this, as well as angry.
↧
Comment on New Open-Access Humanities Journal Launches by ayansola tomi segun
methodology is important.
↧
Comment on New Open-Access Humanities Journal Launches by ayansola tomi segun
method should be detailed
↧
Comment on New Open-Access Humanities Journal Launches by ayansola tomi segun
free submission without fee is prefered
↧
↧
Comment on OMICS Group Aims to Trick Researchers with Copycat Journal Titles by Ken Witwer
OMICS, I fear, will never cease and desist. They will just incorporate under new names, hide behind scores of fake employees, and all the while dupe unusupecting junior or failed academics into volunteering the minimal work needed to keep the thing going…
↧
Comment on Questionable OA Publisher Launches with a Clever Website and 52 New Journals by Some obvious notes on Mitra and Crawley (2014) | EFL Notes
[…] Finally the journal the paper that Mitra and Crawley went with has a less than stellar reputation. […]
↧
Comment on New Journal Claims to be “The Ultimate Online Journal Publishing House” by Seliho
Dear Beall,
Thank you very much it is about two weeks.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Mihiri Munasinghe
thank you very much Mr. Jeffrey…….
↧
↧
Comment on Strange New OA Publisher Launches with 42 Journals by Andrew Hall
Here’s an unbeatable offer (for men only?) from Public Science Framework, received yesterday. It applies to all 42 of their journals:
There is no submission fee. Publication fee for each accepted paper is $0.00 for author who submits his precious paper before April 10, 2015. Later the publication fee will restore to $200 (for authors based in developing countries) and $300 (for authors based in developed countries).
↧
Comment on Strange New OA Publisher Launches with 42 Journals by Andrew Hall
I have just checked the publisher’s web site which now lists 66 journals, not 42
↧
Comment on The Scientific World Journal Will Lose Its Impact Factor — Again by A. Boucherif
ISI indexing is a business making money on the back of scientists. Every Hindawi Math. Journal has an editor-in-chief and the review process is as clean as any other math. journal. There are ridiculous paper in every journal. Many US and European journal are rejecting papers on a geographical basis without review process. I believe the scientific community should go for google scholar indexing and scopus.
↧
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by Phillip J. Baker, Ph.D.
The findings reported by Middleveen et al. in their paper, “Exploring the association between Morgellons disease and Lyme disease: identification of Borrelia burgdorferi in Mogellons disease patients” defy credibility ( http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/s12895-015-0023-0.pdf ) . They are strikingly at variance with the results of a thorough and extensive study finding no evidence to indicate that any infectious agent is involved in Morgellons, “a poorly characterized constellation of symptoms with the primary manifestations involving the skin” (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029908 ). Obviously, in situations like this, independent confirmation is essential before the findings reported by Middleveen et al. can be given serious consideration by the scientific community. To date, there is no such confirmation.
The need for independent confirmation of the work of Middleveen et al. is also compelled by the fact that two of the co-authors have a past history of publishing suspect data. Dr. R.B. Stricker was found guilty of falsifying data for both a published manuscript and a Public Health Service-supported publication reporting research on AIDS; he was severely disciplined for such egregious misconduct ( http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not93-177.html ). Dr. E. Sapi and co-workers published results using a novel unvalidated method for culturing Borelia burgdorferi (Int. J. Med.Sci. 10: 362-376, 2013); unfortunately, other investigators were unable to confirm their findings and noted a high percentage of false positive cultures, most likely due to the laboratory contamination of patient specimens (Johnson, BJ, Pilgard, MA, and Russell, TM . J. Clin. Microbiol. 52: 721-724, 2014).
In other studies, Dr. R.S. Stricker claimed that a decrease in a CD57 lymphocyte subset may be an important marker of chronic Lyme disease, and that changes in this CD57 subset may be useful in monitoring the response to therapy (Immunol. Lett. 76: 43-48, 2001). The publication of Stricker’s findings encouraged various Lyme literate physicians (LLMDs) and their associates to view the CD 57 test as a major advance in the diagnosis of chronic Lyme disease (https://heallyme.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/understanding-the-cd-57-test/ ). However, Marques et al. found that the number of CD 57+ natural killer cells is not significantly different between patients with post-Lyme disease syndrome and controls (Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 16: 1249-1250, 2009), thereby questioning the validity of the CD 57 test as a diagnostic test for chronic Lyme disease.
There is considerable misinformation about Lyme disease being disseminated on the internet as well as in the media (http://www.aldf.com/Misinformation_about_Lyme_Disease.shtml ). The situation described above does not help matters and indicates the need for greater assurances that scientific publications — especially when they concern the public health– are subjected to rigorous peer review. Otherwise, the outcome is total and complete chaos in which no one can trust the findings reported in any scientific publications. Scientific organizations were once responsible for monitoring the quality of papers published in their officially sponsored journals, largely by ensuring that such journals had a competent editorial board and that all manuscripts submitted were reviewed competently with great care. Obviously, with the emergence of open-access journals and their ilk, that is no more the case.
↧
↧
Comment on OMICS Group Aims to Trick Researchers with Copycat Journal Titles by Alex SL
This is annoying, sure, but what I will never understand is why authors and editors are confused by this. I have yet to see a spam message that would successfully trick a concussed chicken into believing that it came from a serious journal, not least because serious journals don’t need to spam in the first place. And surely every competent scientist knows the relevant journals in their field well enough to not fall prey to these guys?
↧
Comment on OMICS Group Aims to Trick Researchers with Copycat Journal Titles by Weekend reads: Why some scientists lie, the state of academic integrity in Iran, Nature goes double-blind - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch
[…] Would these journal titles fool you into publishing in the wrong place? […]
↧
Comment on OMICS Group Aims to Trick Researchers with Copycat Journal Titles by Yc
This practice is rather wide-spread though. THose of us who were in the field for some time probably remember those waves of new journals. First they started to add locations “European” versus “American” and sometimes “British” (that was long time ago), than there was a wave of “International” journals; after this “world” and “open” journals became common,
Now? I see a lot of “publishers” simply adding their name in front of an existing title. Just recently while looking for a “journal of gastroenterology” I bumped into this “Edorium Journal of Gastroenterology” and it is an isolated example.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Dr.Safila
Journal of Bioequivalence and bioavailability is in ISI web of knowlege list Or in link but this is belong to OMIC group ..predator.
what does it mean.
↧
↧
Comment on OMICS Group Aims to Trick Researchers with Copycat Journal Titles by Ed Rigdon
“Oops.. . What was the email address again? I’ll search in my inbox for ‘Journal of . . . ‘ Ah, there it is!” Publication mills and diploma mills serve similar purposes–if you just need a chit, any chit, they’ll do just fine. And for the struggling academic, who really *needs* a quality publication, how hard is it to fool yourself into believing that your big break has arrived?
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Jeffrey Beall
Yes, I do see this journal included <a href="http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0975-0851" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here </a>on the Thomson Reuters Master List. However, I do not see the journal included in ISI (Journal Citation Reports). It does not have an impact factor.
I recommend that you avoid all OMICS Group journals, even if they are included on this list.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by The Lost Art Of Reviewing: Hints for Reviewers and Authors » The Delocalized Physicist
[…] to be mistaken with predatory journals, presenting all kinds of schemes in which you pay heavily for your publication to get […]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
