Hello Jeffrey, my research is on astrobiology. I was contacted by DP company, telling me “… your excelent paper ..” etc and asking me to submit a paper to them, which I didn’t do. Later they invited me to be a reviewer for their Aerospace Journal. I accepted, because there is no fee for paying them. Recently, I sent a mail to them – his/her name is Veinace (have someone heard about ?) – asking for some info regarding submission of a text to their Arts Journal; I’m also an amateur photographer. Ok, I wasn’t remembering the complete name of this journal so I googled for it (so many journals, oddliy repeated in their website) and luckly found this forum. Please, since I received from them a .pdf document saying I’m now a reviewer for them, for 1 year, do I continue or do I send a letter to this Veinace asking to withdraw my reviewer unpaid “job” ? Thank you for your clear advices to all here
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Antonio
↧
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Jeffrey Beall
I recommend that you send them an email telling them that you resign as an editorial board member. Also ask them to remove your name from their website immediately.
Good luck.
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by Jeffrey Beall
I have this journal included on my <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">standalone journals list</a>.
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by Jeffrey Beall
Thank you for this notification. I have added this case to the hijacked journals list.
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by Jeffrey Beall
Thanks — I have this case included on my list already.
↧
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Antonio
Thank you very much Jeffrey, I’ll do that.
Best regards, sincerely, Antonio
↧
Comment on Berkeley, California-Based Journal is Hijacked by Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)
Shocking. Note that the hijacker's journal isn't even open access - authors have to pay to publish, but readers need to sign in as a subscriber to download articles... and <a href="http://theveliger.net/papers/index.php/ABOUT/about/subscriptions" rel="nofollow">subscriptions cost $1500 per year!</a>
↧
Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Robin P Clarke
The problem Jeffrey is that you start from the assumption that the whole system of selection of “proper” experts and expertise and so on is actually funtioning validly. There’s huge evidence that that is very far from the case (at least in medical matters), but if you insist on first assuming that it is, then inevitably you end up “proving” it true after all. You are too preoccupied with supposed indicators of genuineness (such as what university) when ultimately there are no really unscammable alternatives to just evaluating the particular document per se. You reckon to categorise some oa journals as “junk” and yet there has been plenty of real junk articles in the supposedly most esteemed journals. As per the words of Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)
And I could go on and on with more here.
↧
Comment on Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science by Robin P Clarke
“At one point every great mind thought the world was flat.”
Notorious myth for which no-one can ever cite any evidence. Sure, Allah’s perfect Qur’an did reveal to us that the earth is shaped like a flat dish, but that’s about it.
Even the pre-Copernican view that the sun went round the earth was based on very reasonable awareness that otherwise the stars would have to be absolutely mind-bogglingly gigantic distances away, and the entire earth would be just a microscopic speck in the universe.
Meanwhile, fully-qualified “experts” now believe, in defiance of a ton of actual evidence, that blood and urine levels of mercury are useful indicators of chronic mercury toxicity as per second link down at http://www.tinyurl.com/dentmerc
But there’s no way of challenging such charlatanism and that “professor” continues talking his rubbish to further victims.
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley, California-Based Journal is Hijacked by charlesstirtonCharles Stirton
Fake website has its address as the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History: See http://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/santa-barbara-museum-of-natural-history-santa-barbara
These hijacked journals are becoming a bit of a pain. I nearly got caught by a fake Bothalia (I have published many articles in the genuine Bothalia) but thanks to your excellent work I now double-check everything. I get at least 1-3 emails every week asking me to publish in some new online journal. I support Open Access wherever I can and have now published a few articles successfully in the Open Access journal called Phytokeys which I can recommend as a very professional outfit with high refereeing standards.
Surely there must be something we can do apart from transparency and exposure to to put these criminals out of business?
↧
Comment on Other pages by Vlad The Impaler
I just have to share this with you – OMICS entraps not just scholarly authors, it also entraps complete crack-pots. http://omicsonline.org/scientific-reports/srep447.php
This complete and utter drivel (4 new laws of genetics which are based on the energy differential between X- and Y-bearing gametes as they move through fallopian tubes) as I discovered has been rejected (amid tears-reducing laughter) by a number of OA genetics and genomics journal before appearing in OMICS Scientific Reports (above). Of course people remember a scientific manuscript with passages like this:
“Methods: Practical observations of reality (to humans, plants, animals); Multidisciplinary theoretical studies.” – That’s it, that’s the Methods section.
And then like this “So, the probability that girls resemble the fathers more is bigger than the probability that they resemble their mothers more. This fact is in accordance with reality where anyone can notice that most girls (almost 70% of their number) resemble more their fathers and fewer girls (almost 30%) resemble their mothers.”
Do you see any place this manuscript could have received peer-review (pun intended) outside psychiatric ward?
↧
Comment on Berkeley, California-Based Journal is Hijacked by herr doktor bimler
authors have to pay to publish, but readers need to sign in as a subscriber to download articles
That seems to be the case for a lot of the ‘jacked journals.
It’s part of the business model. I disagree with Wimcrusio about “people who published there, not knowing its a fake”; the contributors must be aware that no-one is going to *read* the publications that their universities have paid for, and are only concerned with pumping up their CVs.
↧
Comment on Berkeley, California-Based Journal is Hijacked by herr doktor bimler
Various papers and books cite http://www.veliger.org (without the ‘the’) as the Society’s original website, but evidently they changed to http://www.theveliger.org some time before 2004 — which is the first snapshot of that latter site recorded in the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040128164650/http://www.theveliger.org/
It was still the legitimate Veliger in a Jan 2014 snapshot:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140107072558/http://theveliger.org/
(meanwhile the original domain lapsed in 2003 or thereabouts, and various grifters and scammers have been operating out of it).
The hijacking is already part of the Whackyweedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Veliger
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley, California-Based Journal is Hijacked by herr doktor bimler
Looking at the Abstracts, it seems that the scammers are still at the stage of generating nonsensical software-scripted fake content to create the impression of a lively journal. E.g.
http://theveliger.net/papers/index.php/ABOUT/article/view/35
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Dr. Anthony Waddimba
Dr. Beall, what is your assessment of the Journal of Hospital Administration?
↧
Comment on Berkeley, California-Based Journal is Hijacked by Ned Rubin
The tip-off is the odd grammatical structure and syntax of the web page blurb for the “journal”, which suggests a not very clever non-English speaker composing the fraudulent text..
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
I think you are referring to the <em>Journal of Hospital Administration</em><a href="http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/jha" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"></a> published by "SCIEDU Press," the publisher with a silly, contrived name. I have the publisher SCIEDU Press included on my list and recommend that you avoid all the journals from this publisher. I think there are many better hospital admin journals and you should prefer them over this one. Good luck.
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley, California-Based Journal is Hijacked by Chris Mebane
Frightening. The Veliger is one of many small, specialty, natural history journals that have challenges enough as stand alone journals as it is, without this sort of malice. The Editorial Board lists names of real people from the California Academy of Science, which fits the scope of the genuine journal. But for the bizarre mix of titles in the “Current Issue” and awkward syntax, I might have thought the journal had simply broadened its scope. Easy to see how people could get pulled in; not so clear how the genuine journal clears their name from this smear. Thanks for the blog and for fighting this good fight.
↧
Comment on Have I Discovered the Source of the Hijacked Journals? by Dr. Sikander Ghayas Khan
What about this journal
↧
Comment on Have I Discovered the Source of the Hijacked Journals? by Jeffrey Beall
I think this is the hijacked instance of a legitimate journal.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
