Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Scholarly Open Access
Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Questionable OA Publisher Launches with a Clever Website and 52 New Journals by H.D. Bradell

0
0

British people don’t put a comma after street number either.


Comment on Hijacked Journals by Paul

0
0

Kindly advise me, I have recently submitted an article to Walailak Journal of Science and Technology. Right now I tried to check for the status of the article online but the site isn’t working. Yet my internet is very okay. It has been like that for days now. What should I do?

Comment on Appeals by D. Akamoto

0
0

Dear Dr. Beall,
I need your opinion about “World Scientific Publishing” (HQ: Singapore). Their webpage and wikipage doesn’t seem to be too helpful in deciding if they are predatory or genuine publishers. Recently, I got an email from them to contribute for a book chapter and would like to make sure about their legitimacy. Thanks again!

Comment on Hijacked Journals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I have known of this journal for some time, but it has not been on my list. However, I recently received a request to analyze it, but I to was unable to access the journal’s website. While I realize some internet problems are ephemeral, some may also indicate an ongoing technological instability with the journal. I think it is acceptable for you to email the journal and tell them you wish to withdraw your manuscript. Request a confirmation and save it. Hopefully their email works.

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

World Scientific is a subscription publisher (therefore not on my list), and I find it to be a low-quality, bottom tier publisher. I think this is a dangerous publisher, and I recommend seeking a stronger, more reputable one.

Comment on Science Publishing Group Publishes Junk Science by sociedade alternativa

0
0

The best peer reviewer is the reader -us-. The top high impact journals can publish pseudoscience crap. You count the number of papers that are reproducible in these very short publications and there are many retractions everyday : http://retractionwatch.com/

Just to name some famous examples, which were considered publishable in these journals, including a Nobel Laureate:

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/08/senior-riken-scientist-involved-stem-cell-scandal-commits-suicide

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100923/full/news.2010.489.html

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by eriktrell

0
0

I would like to make a case report here that I believe may bring useful perspectives on the Hindawi enterprise and the overall predatory journals and good publicist and editorial standards issue, and more specifically how a Trojan horse ‘preditor’ may overturn ever so good records and aspirations for both publisher – in this instance Hindawi – and author – me.

I know it is a very long note but believe that the subject matter and the recent editorial in BMJ, “Firm action needed on predatory journals” (BMJ 2015; 350: h210), makes it timely and called for, and important also for Hindawi to consider in order to maintain the position within the non-predatory journals league.

I am an, if not grand so at least old man in preventive Medicine (I attach my Pubmed entry here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Trell+E) and, designing and running the Department of Preventive Medicine in Malmö in the seventies and eighties have contributed to innovative developments in e.g. alcohol and cancer and general prevention and the on-line medical informatics management of it. This, in turn, enabled a transferal of the clinical protocol to working out in Society with an interactive logbook/on-line computer health counseling instrument with the thermometer as visual analogue called (in Swedish) hälsometer (In English healthometer, in Greek hygeiometro, in German Gesundheitsthermometer). Like its parent it serves to recognize and reinforce the positive, wellbeing aspects of health, in the overall encouraging light of which it is possible to identify and advice on the occasional weak spots.

After due publication in this R&D phase, Hälsometer has continued in routine use, e.g. in a large elderly health campaign in Sweden. However, now the time has come for an updating because of the changing information technology and associated market offering situation in the population, and the “wide opinion gap between scientists and the general public” (A.I. Leshner, “Bridging the opinion gap”, Science 347, 459, 2015) which has occurred also in the health system much owing to its lagging behind in adaptation to it. It has been authoritatively stated that “the only recourse is genuine, respectful dialogue with people” (Ib.), and that this as a major basic Science concern today requires “new tools for measuring…subjective well-being (SWB)…as well as conceptual frameworks for interpreting such measurements…which refer to how people experience and evaluate their lives and specific domains and activities in their lives…considering both happiness and misery”. (A.A. Krueger and A.A. Stone, “Progress in measuring subjective well-being”, Science 346, 42-43, 2015) This is in effect what Hälsometer aims to do, operationalizing in color-enhanced visual analog scale “vignettes…a coherent framework for aggregating dimensions of SWB…in which individuals’ utility depends on several nonoverlapping aspects” (Ib.).

When now being developed to modern mobile app implementation, a renewed report was therefore warranted, and was submitted as a review under the perhaps a bit presumptuous title ”HealthOmeter – an aid in advancing Preventive Medicine media revolution” in December 2014 to Hindawi’s Advances in Preventive Medicine, which appeared to be the ideal open access journal for it. I stated in my covering letter the instrument’s novelty in terms not only of software but also and importantly of the quality-assured know-how (“wetware”) it holds. The paper (Reference number APM/979084) was well received and a few directly recommended amendments including a slight reduction of the number of (self-)references were made in January. In February came the review reports which were on the whole encouraging. Both reviewers found that “the topic of this manuscript falls within the scope of Advances in Preventive Medicine”, and the first reviewer commented that “this paper rises an important issue for the preventive medicine and political agenda” and recommended that it “should be published unaltered”. The second reviewer did not find the paper in its form at that stage “of sufficient quality or novelty to be published in this journal”, but gave a list of six constructive and easily resolved points for amendment. The report was accompanied by a letter from the Editor, William Cho, that the article should be revised, “taking into account the changes requested by the reviewers” and gave me time to March 24 for that. So far, a quite normal editorial process, and one that I from large own experience both as author and reviewer (and editorial board member) considered on the whole favorable, and had no problem to follow, sending my amendment within a week.

But then the abnormalities started. Within a few days I got the following response from the editor:
“After reviewing your Review Article 979084 titled “‘Healthometer’ – an aid in advancing preventive medicine media revolution,” by Erik Trell, I regret to inform you that it was found unsuitable for publication in Advances in Preventive Medicine.
>> We appreciate the authors’ efforts. However we used to publish scientific paper, some figures seems not the usual figures for scientific article.
>> Besides, we need more scientific results to back up the therapy.
>> Furthermore, validation is needed for the generalization usage.
>> Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Advances in Preventive Medicine.
>> Best regards,
>> William Cho”

None of these, quite colloquially expressed sweeping allegations were raised in the review and were thus not at all pending in the process. So on March 9 I protested, emphasizing also that the proper and commanded review still was on. I got this (like all communication from the office very kind and considerate) answer the same day:
“This is to confirm the receipt of your email below and inform you that I have raised your concerns to the Editor and to my supervisors, and I shall be contacting you soon”.
And on the 11th of March:
“Thank you for your email. Of course, we understand your disappointment and we will certainly consider your further clarification. I want to assure you that we are currently in contact with the Editor, and I will get back to you once I receive a reply from his/her side.”

However, nothing happened, so on the 9th of April I wrote:
“It is now a month since I got your reassurance…this has not happened so I must draw the conclusion that the result is silence…” I am not going in detail on my further discourse, but I started to raise concerns about the Editor’s competence and fairness and the motivations of his sudden reversal including possible vested interests (one of the six reviewer points was if any financial interests are involved which I could inform is not the case since engaged in an EU research program).

The answer from Hindawi, two days later was:
“This is to confirm the receipt of your email. Please accept my apology for the delay in our reply. Please be sure that the delay in unintended. But, we have to meticulously investigate the matter in order to decide on the most appropriate action that should be taken. In order to reach a decision that is fair and well considered, we decided to consult other Editors and seek their opinion regarding this issue. Currently, the issue is pending the receipt of the Editors’ feedback. Once we have received the opinions we sought, we will contact you”.

I replied, the same day:
”Thank you for your rapid response. But I am not happy at all about your still unilateral and evasive line of action which does not involve me or the real crux at hand but still seems most concerned with vindicating your own and your responsible but still non-accountable editor’s mismanagement. I am most dissatisfied and protest vigorously that you again digress and puts above my head the case to a ring of your own editors, thereby handing over my confidential work even more to dissipation and slander…Let me remind you that the actual case is that I submitted a scientific article to you, and amended it three times according to your instructions, and that you put it to a regular review process that I passed…And there is where it still stands; performed, fulfilled – and passed. This is the situation that you have to solve and comply with as a decent, qualified, non-predatory publisher. If there are any further consultants called for they are to be impartial and independent experts in the scientific field and putting their objective expertise and not loose and most possibly biased local “opinions” to the essential question, namely, the quality of the article and your editorial process.”

But the scholarly struggle was in vain. On the 16th of April I got this blow:
“Dear Dr. Trell,
I hope my email finds you well. We regret that this investigation has taken a long time, but as you know we have to be meticulous to maintain the standards of the journal. Following your email below, please allow me to clarify the following points: All of our Editors are leading researchers in their fields, and they have been chosen for their strong academic background and publication history…We trust that our Editors will maintain high standards while making their editorial judgments…Please note that invited manuscripts go through the same peer review process like all other submitted manuscripts…At last and following our previous correspondence in regards to the Editor’s decision, we have received feedback from one of the Editorial board members. Please find his comments in the Word file attached to my email. I regret to inform you that the Editor as well as the Editorial board member have both agreed on the same opinion, and so we have to respect the Editors’ decision.”

The verdict, in brief: Paper too long, sentences unclear, complicated language, figures can be deleted (and replaced by a table! In a pictorial review of the instrument itself!), too many self-references (in a review of own work); that is effectively the essence of it. One editor secretly “agreed”, and I am left with an unfair stain in my shield, and, worse, Science could be deprived of a valuable and called for advance in Preventive Medicine. It is quite easy, and important, to point out the serious editorial and publicist fallacies in this case. The assured ”review process” remains annulled, just an illusion, a false promise that led a serious scientist astray. And instead of fulfilling its contract and continue the review, Hindawi ”at last…received feedback from one of the Editorial board members”, who “agreed on the same opinion”. What is that but collusion? “At last”, Hindawi managed to find one single, anonymous, editorial board member who agreed to support Dr Cho! It is definitely not decent publication standards. It is definitely not transparent. And it is an insult also against the honest reviewers and their sincere work and the entire regular editorial process. In practice Hindawi’s conduct here is predatory.

However, is it systematic, is it in Hindawi’s system? Let us test the assurance: “All of our Editors are leading researchers in their fields, and they have been chosen for their strong academic background and publication history…We trust that our Editors will maintain high standards while making their editorial judgments”. And let us test it for the Editor-in-Charge here, William Chi-sing Cho, who from the website presentations in the journals he is editor of appears as a per se capable albeit non-MD (or Ph.D. or other academic degree) biomedicine “scientific officer” dealing with e.g. cancer biomarkers, proteomics and microRNA and whose acumen as a global preventive or other clinical medicine editor might therefore be questioned. None-the-less he is described as “editor-in-chief and editor in a number of international medical journals” and it is ominous that a rapid screening of just a few of them where he is imposingly announced as editor reveals that at least three belong to open access publishers reported in Beall’s list as predatory. They are Journal of Pharmacogenomics and Pharmacoproteomics by OMICS; International Journal of Molecular Sciences by the MDPI group, and Journal of Cancer Therapeutics by HERBERT open access journals. I think that Hindawi should be wary about the true drives and capacity of such a prolific entrepreneur on the shady side of the otherwise constructive and productive open access publication venue. What good are official declarations when they could be undermined by a mole?

And one’s worries increase even more when one reads from the web homepages of these journals that he is also an “international renowned grant reviewer of the Hope Funds for Cancer Research (USA), Cancer Research (UK), MRC Research Grant (UK), Health Research Board (Ireland), Science Foundation (Ireland), Istituto Toscano Tumori (Firenze), The Foundation Fournier-Majoie for Innovation (Brussels), National Medical Research Council (Singapore), The Medical Research Council (South Africa), and Academia Sinica Investigator Award (Taiwan), etc”.

Well, I close this lengthy but I firmly believe constructive complaint now, and leave to Hindawi to draw the right conclusions and start the necessary restoration to a truly non-predatory publishing company. In my case that would mean continuing the ongoing review of my manuscript. My reasons for submitting it to you was because I considered Advances in Preventive Medicine as the designated herald of the new signals and developments that the media revolution bring to its subject. There are a few more intuitive reasons as well, connected with earlier scientific collaborations (and even HealthOmeter co-authorship) with Egypt at the University of Cairo and in Alexandria, and also first getting in contact with the subtle art of square-octagonal periodic tiling there. This has, in turn, led to some publications and even a recent invitation from the Hindawi Journal of Nanotechnology to submit an article in the nanotechnology field. Everything is connected in the end, and my hope is for a happy one.

Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Ivana

0
0

As I can see, both journals use the same ISSN.


Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Cuong Diep

0
0

The journal “Stem Cell and Translational Investigation,” also published by Smart Science Technology, charges $800 US dollars for an article. I also think it is very amateurish.

Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Awadhesh, I had not heard of these journals before. I agree with your opinion about them and have added them both to my list. They appear to be dead or dying — in both cases the latest issue I found was from 2014. The second one boasts fake impact factors. Thank you for alerting me to these low-quality journals.

Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Non-amphibian

0
0

Here is “the journal’s” entry in the Directory of open-access journals:
https://doaj.org/toc/1525-9153

It points to the website of Hassapakis, the journal that claims to have been established in 1996.

This is not proof for anything, really, just another piece of the puzzle.

Maybe those two journals should engage in conversation instead of conservation for a little while.

Comment on Appeals by Shivakar Kumar

0
0

Dear Dr. Beall,
I want to Remove my site “Innovative Publication”.
More than 15 indexing portal is not indexed our journals because my site added here.
So, Please Removed our site “Innovative Publication”
Thanks again!!
Web:- http://innovativepublication.com/

Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Kitty

0
0

*starts chanting “Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!”*

Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Kitty

0
0

Great Crested Newt, I choose you!

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Last November, you sent me an email asking me to add your publisher to my list: “Dear Sir
We would like to introduce our self Innovative Publication is leading Publication Services in India, We are Specialize Publishing of Indian/Foreign Journals/Periodicals in all subject category, like Medical,Veterinary, Agricultural, Engineering, Management Journals across the country.
I requested to you please include my Journal.”

Your firm is not a leading publisher as you state, and you requested that your firm’s name be added to a blacklist. I choose to keep “Innovative Publication” on my list.


Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Keith Fraser

0
0

That sounds a tad cruel to the innocent reptiles and amphibians. Clearly the two professors themselves should fight, perhaps dressed as their favourite reptile or amphibian.

Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Ari

Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I have this journal’s publisher, Journal Issues, included on my list and recommend that you not submit any papers to any of its journals. Instead, I recommend that you find a stronger publisher.

Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Breck Bartholomew

0
0

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation has an odd history. It was founded by Craig Hassapakis in the 1990s. It took years to publish each issue and Craig resorted to various things to get money to publish the journal. It has always been a work of devotion for him and I doubt he ever made any money on it. He has pissed some people off by making promises he cannot keep – although his intentions are good.

At some point Robert Browne bought into the journal and put up some money to publish it. Browne also published at least one of his own papers in it, which was later found to be somewhat scandalous. Apparently Browne had stolen data from other researchers and fabricated his field work regarding a rare salamander in Iran. I think this is part of the reason Browne has moved jobs and eventually landed in Belize. (this paper and comments about it can be found at: http://www.zenscientist.com/index.php/filedrawer/Open-Access-Journals/Amphibian–and–Reptile-Conservation/Al-Sheikhly-et-al.-2013-ARC-6(4)-42-49./)

At some point after this scandal (and probably because of it) Hassapakis tried to distance himself from Browne. Browne feels he bought the journal with his cash input, but there was never anything except a verbal agreement. I don’t know Browne, but I am acquainted with Hassapakis and I cannot see him selling the journal. It has been his baby since he founded it.

Neither has been particularly good at making everything completely upfront, but Hassapakis is the one that has made an effort to make sure the journal remains viable and continues to publish. Hassapakis also has found reviewers and editors for the journal – I think his efforts has stepped up since the split with Browne.

Browne has threatened people associated with Hassapakis, although when he has been asked for proof that he owns the journal he normally ceases communication.

All in all it is a bit of a mess, but the journal run by Hassapakis is the one that is recognized by the herpetological community.
Browne has done little to create a viable journal, or publish reputable papers. His reputation has also been severely damaged after his fraudulent paper on the Iranian Salamander.

Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Craig Hassapakis

0
0

To help clear the record, Robert K. Browne was removed from any association with the ARC journal (amphibian-reptile-conservation.org) by official vote of the ARC Board of Directors (http://amphibian-reptile-conservation.org/editors.html) on July 31, 2015 for unethical breaches concerning his duties as an editor of the journal. He no longer has any official status concerning ARC but does continue to make illegitimate claims which are false and should be disregarded. Craig Hassapakis, arc.publisher@gmail.com; Publisher & Editor, Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, Editor, FrogLog & member of the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (ASG) & Group Facilitator, Genome Resources Working Group (ASG/GRWG).

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images