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

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Tariq Hussein

0
0

Dear Dr Beall,
For your information Ayurvedic medicines are not from pseudo science. I feel you must take your words of pseudo science.Its more ancient science. You may criticize journals but now Asian feelings.


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

0
0

Hunger Games, the Science edition

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

0
0
Agreed, and indeed Impact Journals is included on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

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

0
0

Dear Jeffrey Beall, I received an invitation to review a manuscript from this journal. I won’t reply. Thank a lot!! Have a nice day!

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

0
0

I had tried for months to no avail and was a total waste of time. There is no reasoning with individuals who are unethical and only interested in their own self-interests.

Comment on So-Called “Special” Issues of Journals: Big Money for Gold OA Publishers by Frontiers acts to defend distributed editorial independence | Frontiers Blog

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

0
0

Breck–good analysis. Do you know if either holds the trademark? If so, dispute over. We are dealing with this now, since there is another “The Biodiversity Group” that has sprung up in the UK.

Comment on Mexican OA Journal Demands a “Mordida” from Authors Submitting Manuscripts by Sergio González

0
0

On April 21, Mr. A. Teixeira da Silva uploaded on the Scholarly Open Access site, a libel pointing out that Revista Agrociencia charges “MORDIDAS” (sic) for publishing articles. Although we knew about the apparent anger of Mr. Teixeira da Silva, we did not answer because his statements are worthless and uncalled for and, most probably, no reply is needed. However, some outstanding members of the national and international scientific community have let us know their disagreement and anger about the libelous statement published by Mr. Teixeira da Silva. Therefore, we feel an answer is called for.

First, we will show some relevant information about Agrociencia. In 2016, the journal will reach 50 years of publishing, and it is successfully consolidated with about 400 reviewers from 12 Ibero-American countries. Two reviewers and one editor evaluate each manuscript, and they will approve or reject it. Every year, about 100 articles are published according to the Guidelines, which are in effect since 2004; thus, about 1000 have already been published and none of the authors have complained about subscription fees or payment to translators.

Mr. Teixeira da Silva pointed out just one true statement: Agrociencia is an open journal, its access is free in the Internet, and no subscription is required in order to read, copy or print any article. Thus, the only purpose of requiring a subscription is to help paying some of the publication costs of the journal. If an author declares that he cannot pay the subscription, due to lack of funds or not being able to obtain support from his country, this requirement is forfeited. Please, take into account that the one time annual subscription requirement is included in the Authors Guide and in a letter sent to the Corresponding Author. Hence, Mr. Teixeira lies again.

But we do declare ourselves guilty of not being able to find excellent translators who do not demand payment for his work. Since translators are not employees of the Colegio de Postgraduados, neither of the Editorial or Agrociencia, every payment for translating a manuscript is a direct agreement between the Corresponding Author and the translator.

Finally, we strongly point out that no further words or efforts will be wasted about this trivial incident, which stem from faulty judgment or wicked intentions from Mr. Teixera da Silva. A final comment: as is often the case, Mr. Teixeira writing in English is very poor. That is why professional translators are required. The rest is silence.

El Editor General del Colegio de Postgraduados
Said Infante Gil

El Director de Agrociencia
Sergio S. González Muñoz


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

0
0

Please note that Omar F. Al-Sheikhly is the first author of the “fraudulent paper on the Iranian Salamander”. This paper is retracted ( http://amphibian-reptile-conservation.org/archive.html ). The PDF can be downloaded for free. It is very clearly indicated on the PDF that this paper is retracted.
.
Omar F. Al-Sheikhly is as well the first author of a 2013 paper in a Taylor & Francis journal (Zoology in the Middle East) on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler. Quite a few highly respected ornithologists have serious doubts on the veracity of significant parts of the data which are presented in this paper.
.
See http://www.britishbirds.co.uk/article/basrareedwarblergate/ and see
http://www.osme.org/content/unsubstantiated-claims-concerning-breeding-biology-basra-reed-warbler-acrocephalus-griseldis (with many comments).
.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09397140.2013.810870?src=recsys (the paper in question, published in 2013).
.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09397140.2015.1023424?src=recsys (a comment by Porter et al, published in 2015).

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Nova Rugayah

0
0

I have an article has been published in International Journal of Poultry Science (IJPS) in Pakistan, the Publisher is ANSINetwork which is on your list….However, the journal has 0,33 SJR and Q3…I need your comment….thanks in advance

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

0
0

Renowned Iran Country Researcher and Author Rejects Illegitimate Journal

Dr. Steven C. Anderson author of “The Lizards of Iran” and preeminent Iran country researcher makes historic stand against Robert Browne’s ARC journal

Stockton, California, USA, November 7, 2014: It is not often that famous researchers and authors make bold public statements, unless there is good reason to. Case in point: Dr. Steven C. Anderson, Professor of Emeritus, Department of Biology, University of Pacific, Stockton, California, USA and author of The Lizards of Iran (Published by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles [SSAR]: the largest and most respected herpetology society in the world) has released the following statement on Facebook to Iranian researchers and herpetologists worldwide:

“To all Iranian herpetology researchers: I wish to call your attention to a matter concerning Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (ARC). Currently two separate journals are being published under the ARC title (Amphibian & Reptile Conservation [the original journal] and Amphibian and Reptile Conservation [Robert Browne’s ARC). The legitimate ARC was originally founded by Craig Hassapakis in 1996. I encouraged Craig from the start as he struggled on his own to establish a quality journal and I therefore helped him by volunteering to be the guest editor for the Iran issue, during which time Robert Browne entered the picture. Shortly thereafter, the two disassociated with each other, and Browne began publishing his version of ARC separately from the original ARC (which continues publication today under its original publisher Craig Hassapakis at: amphibian-reptile-conservation.org). To add to the confusion, and to avoid a lawsuit (I suppose) Browne now calls his publication ARC Middle East and Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (redlist-ARC.org). As for my part, I am giving notice that I will not review, nor will I cite papers in this latter publication, which I consider illegitimate.” –

—Steven C. Anderson

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Yes, as you indicate, ANSINetwork is included on my list, and I stand by this listing. The numbers don’t tell the whole story.
Increasingly, I personally am finding Scimago of little or no value.

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Good question. If Research Gate is counting predatory journals for its impact points, then the impact points are completely worthless.

Comment on Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI by Blazeyastic

0
0

Jeff are you saying every journal with DOI are suitable for publication than those without it? Remember, there some of your listed predatory journals with DOI, thanks.

Comment on Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

No, I am not saying that.


Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Andrew

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Andrew

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Stal

0
0

Thank you for your unselfish guidance to all researchers.

Comment on Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI by Sudesh Kumar

0
0

what Jeffrey is saying that the editor does not know what he is talking about…as the editor says “…especially as membership in the DOI system is expensive for small publishers…”
the charges for a small publisher comes to be about $500-800 per year. either the journal wants to save this amount using excuses or the journal is not earning enough to pay this amount…both of which are bad scenarios…

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Rajeev Raghavan

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images