[…] I see this as part of a broader problem involving the proliferation of scientific journals that do not adhere to accepted practices, which in turn is a form of cargo cult science. It is certainly appropriate to bring attention to journals that fail to engage in a rigorous peer-review process. Articles published in such venues should not be regarded by the scientific community in the same manner as those that have been vetted and revised in response to informed critiques prior to publication. So-called ‘post-publication’ peer review models raise some similar issues: http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/06/im-following-a-fringe-science-paper-on-f1000research/. […]
Comment on I’m Following a Fringe Science Paper on F1000Research by Poll: What to do when peer review feels inadequate? - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch
↧
↧
Comment on Questionable Subscription Publisher Acts Like a Predatory OA One by herr doktor bimler
It was profitable so they bought it.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by S Singh
Dear Sir,
Could you please tell me about the quality of International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications(IJISA)?
http://www.mecs-press.org/ijisa/index.html
Thank you,
↧
Comment on Questionable OA Publisher Launches with a Clever Website and 52 New Journals by Ricardo
Thanks for this comments. I just received the publication offer and I was about to pay the fee. So thank you for saving my $200 !
↧
Comment on About the Author by Advice to young scientists: Avoiding predatory publishers | Playing with Matches
[…] List”, a regularly-updated resource by Jeffrey Beall, an academic librarian at the University of Colorado, provides the de facto definitive listing of […]
↧
↧
Comment on OA Publisher to Peer Reviewer: Never Mind by Amelia
Hi Jeffrey,
First I want to say that I have no connection with this publisher. But I see some interesting facts, which I consider may be useful in context of your this blog post.
ScienceDomain International rejected the famous Science Journal “sting” article after extensive peer review (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full). The Science article categorizes three levels of journal peer review that the paper received: no peer review, superficial peer review, and substantial peer review. It says that, the ScienceDomain journal is one of the eight journals (of 98) that rejected the article based on “substantial peer review” (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60/suppl/DC1). You may note that Hindwai, PlosOne, PAGEPress, were among the few publishers, who succeeded the test. Substantial peer review is characterized in the article as “substantial review that identified the paper’s flaws”. Please see the graphic at the bottom of page 64 of the Science article, at
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full.pdf
The underlying data for all the journals is archived at
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60/suppl/DC1
ScienceDomain is at line 41.
In addition, the archived emails at the same page (http://scicomm.scimagdev.org/data/journals/63/6.pdf) indicate that the ScienceDomain journal sent the article out to a three reviewers, which indicates a more extensive review than is typical.
Perhaps it is fair to say that ScienceDomain appears to be improving. You have every right to your own opinion. But providing the proof of rigorous peer review, is the most important thing expected from a publisher/journal.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Ahlem
Dear Mr Beall,
Thank you for Sir for your fast answer.
I will stop the publication procedure to this journal.
I want to know if it is at least really indexed or not.
I have another question if you don’t mind. As a proceeding for a participation to an international conference, my article was selected to be submitted to the ISCA IRJES journal. Unfortunately, this publisher, ISCA, appear in the list of predators publishers. Knowing that my article is already published since january, Have you any suggestion for this situation?
And if you don’t mind, do you have a list of real journals free of charges?
Waiting for your answer, please accept Sir the my most cordial greetings
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
This journal’s publisher, MECS Publisher, is not on my list at this time.
Nevertheless, I would be careful about publishing there. If possible, try to find a suitable journal from a better publisher.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
I would not worry about the already published article and would just leave it there. Use it as a learning experience and write a new and better article and submit it to a better publisher.
Sorry, I do not have a list of good and free journals.
Best wishes for the success of your research.
↧
↧
Comment on Questionable Subscription Publisher Acts Like a Predatory OA One by herr doktor bimler
Looking more closely at that record of journal transfer,
http://uksg-transfer.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/astronomical-review.html
it records Taylor & Francis as acquiring Astron.Rev. from Knowledge Enterprises, with Dylan Fazel as the contact person at the latter.
This seems to indicate that Dylan Fazel is indeed Knowledge Enterprises (i.e. it is not someone else stealing his name), and Editor of the entire stable of start-up titles. Why he is still soliciting contributions and publication fees for Astron.Rev. — and retaining their on-line ISSN (but not the print ISSN) — is anyone’s guess.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
Thanks — this journal is actually published by a firm called KY Publications, which I have included on my list of publishers. However, this journal mostly hides its association with its parent publisher, so I have added it to my standalone journals list to make my listing more visible.
↧
Comment on Questionable Subscription Publisher Acts Like a Predatory OA One by herr doktor bimler
Actually I can answer that last question myself, with the simple answer that he is *not* “soliciting contributions and publication fees” — the “About” page of the Astron.Rev. site explains that “The Astronomical Review is no longer published by Knowledge Enterprises Journals. Content published through 2014 is available at http://www.astroreview.com.”
↧
Comment on OA Publisher to Peer Reviewer: Never Mind by Nicola Simola
Dear tekija,
Standard or not, this is a disrespectful practice. I am a fan of timely peer review, and I always do my assignments by the due time. However, if you allow me 14 days (for example) to perform my review, well you should wait at least 14 days before taking action.
↧
↧
Comment on OA Publisher to Peer Reviewer: Never Mind by K Tada
I had a similar experience with Wiley’s journal “Advanced Energy Materials” (IF 14.385), which is one of the best journals for materials science.
I understand that the editorial team is trying to accelerate the reviewing process (I highly appreciate it as an author), it was an irritating experience as a reviewer. The editorial team may be losing a lot of potential reviewers for their journals.
↧
Comment on OA Publisher to Peer Reviewer: Never Mind by Reinhard
This procedure is not only used by OA publishers. Often more reviewers than required are invited. After spending valuable time on a review I also once learned that my review is no longer necessary. Fortunately this happened to me only once. However with the inflation of OA journals setting short deadlines for a review this practise may become more common.
When I am asked to review a paper for a journal unknown to me I always check this website. If I find the journal or publisher here, I decline and send them a link to scholarlyoa.com.
↧
Comment on OA Publisher to Peer Reviewer: Never Mind by Guido Berens
I also have no connection to the publisher, aside from having done reviews for them a couple of times. I just wanted to add that in principle, all reviews are published on the journal’s website, under the link “Review History” accompanying each article (but only if the reviewer has agreed to share the review). So in principle anyone is able to verify the thoroughness of the peer review process. I think this is a very good idea that might actually help to solve some of the problems with the current review system. This policy was actually the main reason why I agreed to review for them, in spite of them appearing on Beall’s list.
I also have experience with the ‘cancellation’ of accepted review assignments and it seems that the publisher started doing so only recently – I presume to speed up the process. For me it’s not a problem because (I admit) I usually do reviews at the last minute, but I can understand that it’s annoying to some people.
↧
Comment on Appeals by Dina K
Dear Mr. Beall
I just want to know about Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology (JATIT). Why JATIT is in your list?.
In 2014, I don’t think that JATIT was on your list. But it appears on your list may surround in Februari 2015, if I’m not mistaken.
Thank you for your consideration.
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
I added this journal to my list on February 7, 2015.
The journal offers easy acceptance and now is publishing three issues each month. It managed to get indexed in Scopus, so many are using the journal to get easy publications in a Scopus-indexed journal.
I say don’t take the risk of this journal being removed from Scopus.
↧
Comment on OA Publisher to Peer Reviewer: Never Mind by tekija
I have been more tolerant, for exactly the same reason and because the journals were of good standing – and guess what, it has never again happened with the same journals. So, as this discussion has documented, it is standard but infrequent practice. I would definitly not like it to become a rule, that goes without saying.
↧
Comment on OA Publisher to Peer Reviewer: Never Mind by Sandra Gomez
It seems that the publisher is practicing good open peer review. Though in some cases I found some weak peer review reports (may be law of probability and finding expert peer reviewer is not possible always by any journal), it seems that most of the cases peer reviewers are expert in the area of the manuscript and provided detailed report. And more interesting that all peer review reports, different versions of the manuscript, editors’ comments are available for the readers. I have randomly selected five manuscripts from five different journals and found more or less satisfactory transparent peer review practice.
Case 1: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=628&id=12&aid=5819
Total 3 reviewers; two rounds of peer reviews; one round of editorial review. Submission to final decision: approx. 6 weeks
Case 2: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=237&id=29&aid=2058
Total 4 reviewers; three rounds of peer review; two rounds of editorial review; Submission to final decision: approx. 15 weeks
Case 3: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=849&id=19&aid=7302
Total 4 reviewers, two rounds of peer review, one round of editorial review; Submission to final decision: approx. 6 weeks
Case 4: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=582&id=32&aid=5207
Total 3 reviewers, three rounds of peer review, one round of editorial review, Submission to final decision: approx. 4 weeks
Case 5: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=660&id=29&aid=5990
Total 3 reviewers, two rounds of peer review, one round editorial review; Submission to final decision: approx. 7 weeks
I know that more numbers of samples are required to come to any conclusion regarding good/bad peer review. But at least this publisher is transparently publishing the peer review reports. Kindly consider this comment as my personal opinion, which may differ from others. I am sorry if I am not in line with others opinion.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
