Yes, Global Science Research Journals is included on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Klaas van Dijk
I would like to thank Breck Bartholomew for his excellent work in making public available the background information why the paper on salamanders in Iraq (not in Iran) with Robert K. Browne as last author got retracted very soon after it was published. Please note that Robert K. Browne was at that moment closely associated to the journal in which this retracted paper was published.
.
Craig Hassapakis deserves much credit for his brave behaviour and for his immediate actions.
.
The rectracted paper contained field data on the occurrence of salamanders in Iraq collected by PhD student Elnaz Najafi-Majd of the Ege University (Turkey). This is not indicated in the retracted paper. The retracted paper also doesn’t refer to “Najafi-Majd E, Kaya U. 2013. Rediscovery of the Lake Urmia newt, Neurergus crocatus Cope, 1862 (Caudata: Salamandridae) in northwestern Iran after 150 years. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 6(4):36-41(e59)”. This paper lists “Received: 19 October 2012, Accepted: 26 December 2012, Published: 05 April 2013″.
.
Please note that Robert K. Browne was at that time closely associated to the journal “Amphibian and Reptile Conservation”. I fail to understand why he might thus not be aware of this ongoing research of PhD student Elnaz Najafi-Majd. The retracted paper lists: “Received: 14 May 2013, Accepted: 16 June 2013, Published: 15 July 2013″.
.
It is very unethical to publish field data (on the occurrence of salamanders from a particular area) without proper credits to the people who have collected these field data. It is even worse when these field data are part of an ongoing PhD project. So it was an excellent action of Craig Hassapakis that this paper was retracted very quickly after it was published.
.
It seems to me that Robert K. Browne did not accept that his paper got retracted and it seems to me that Robert K. Browne did not accept that he was not anymore affilated to the journal “Amphibian and Reptile Conservation”.
.
It is indeed a very weird situation of a retracted paper where the last author does not accept that his paper got retracted and where this author tries to persuade the rest of the world that his paper is not retracted.
.
The website of Robert K. Browne mentions only his own name, together with a long list of papers (co)authored by him. I am unable to find details on his PhD thesis (subject, title, when and where he got his PhD). Anyone any idea?
↧
Comment on Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI by Weekend reads: Should retirement-age scientists make way?; no pay-for-fast-track peer review - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch
[…] editor badmouths the DOI: Jeffrey Beall has a […]
↧
Comment on I get complaints about Frontiers 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 Craig Hassapakis
At the time Robert K. Browne was the acting editor and assigned to conduct peer-reviewers for the retracted paper which got published without me suspecting anything was wrong. Elnaz Najafi-Majd is a friend of mine and as soon as I found out about the stolen data the paper was immediately retracted and Robert disassociated from ARC by an offcial vote of the Board of Directors. To cause me grieve I assume Robert has been destructive to ARC in his illegimate claims and false allegiations. Robert’s causing problems can be simply explained as a past disgruntled associate of the journal having got caught for who he truly is: unethical and dishonest.
Robert recieved his education at: Newcastle University, Australia in his 40’s having spent his early life as a businessman. Robert’s unscrupulous behaviors have plaged his career in science having been fired from every position he has ever held: Memphis Zoo, Amphiban ARK, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, and ARC. When we were communicating (we don’t now) he explained to me personally that the primary reason he moved to Belize was to be out of the reach of the law!
↧
↧
Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Weekend reads: Should retirement-age scientists make way?; no pay-for-fast-track peer review - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch
[…] [open access] journals share the same title, and each claims the other is not legitimate,” reports Jeffrey […]
↧
Comment on Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI by Robert
CrossRef normally charges 280$ as an annual fee plus one dollar per paper for assigning doi. This fee is associated with small publishers. The fee is nothing compares with advantage people get. Another point is that the managers of some well known indexes such as Scopus only index journals with valid doi. In other words, if a publisher does not cooperate with CrossRef, it is getting difficult to receive valuable index. I believe escaping from DOI membership is a good sign of a predatory activity. This publisher probably knows sooner or later they will have to close their operations so they do not bother to get involved with doi operations.
However, many well known small OA publishers take advantage of doi system and scholars benefit from it.
I believe all Librarians must help scholars know more about the advantages of a journals with valid DOI. I am glad to see that when a publisher tries to receive Scopus index for its journals there is a link to keep track of (See http://suggestor.step.scopus.com/progressTracker). ISI index also provides a link to get the status of journals, but the link often does not give feedback. Here is the link:
http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/info/jrneval-status/
It seems that ISI people are very busy, disregard offering any feedback to scholars and I think within the next few years, Scimago index, which is based on Scopus will break the monopoly of ISI, completely and most universities around the world will depend only on Scimago index.
↧
Comment on Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI by Robert
CrossRef normally charges 280$ as an annual fee plus one dollar per paper for assigning doi. This fee is associated with small publishers. The fee is nothing compares with advantage people get. Another point is that the managers of some well known indexes such as Scopus only index journals with valid doi. In other words, if a publisher does not cooperate with CrossRef, it is getting difficult to receive valuable index. I believe escaping from DOI membership is a good sign of a predatory activity. This publisher probably knows sooner or later they will have to close their operations so they do not bother to get involved with doi operations.
↧
Comment on Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI by David
DOI has nothig to do with quality of a publication. It is not essential to assign DOIs to articles as it is a value added service. So don’t mix DOI assignment with quality of publication. If publishers don’t want to get registered with CrossRef…….it’s their choice…….Actually many people are working to support the corporate agenda…..Now see DOIs also become a corporate product…….These corporate people just want to fill their pockets………….by sucking our blood…….like bats……
↧
↧
Comment on A New Clone of OMICS Publishing Group: MedCrave by Jeffrey Beall
I personally would ask to withdraw the article, but they probably won’t let you do that, or they may charge you to withdraw it. You may want to get help from an attorney. Even if they do withdraw the article, it will be difficult to get it published in another journal.
This is a completely dishonest company, and they will continue to hold your paper “hostage” and ask you for money.
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by lida farahmand azar
hi,
I think journal: GAZI UNIVERTESI GAZI EGITIM FAKULTESI DERGISI
website:
http://www.gugef.com
It seems like this site is a fake.
I think it should be on the list of Hijacked journals
tanks lida
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Yoseph Tilahun
Can I get list of legitimate journals where I can publish my research confidently?
↧
Comment on Questionable OA Publisher Launches with a Clever Website and 52 New Journals by Kate McCain
Coming late to the party, but the ISSN are fiction as well (the first thing I check in UlrichsWeb) –and I’ve been in the journal’s field for ~35 years and never heard of anyone on the (very small) board. Thirdly, the offer to publish in one’s native language makes the journal at best a way for someone to put an item on their CV IFF they want to pay for the privilege.
↧
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by Jeffrey Beall
I cannot find any evidence to confirm that this is a hijacked journal.
↧
Comment on Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI by Ken Lanfear
Jeff, I feel not having a DOI may be a dumb choice, but it is not illegitimate and does not imply bad faith. The EIC is up front about this, so there’s no more deception than a journal that, say, chooses to publish only in paper.
You do your list a disservice by including a journal for this reason. There are plenty of genuine bad actors to worry about.
↧
Comment on Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI by geocognition
I am in the field this “journal” covers, and we need more reputable publication options. I am concerned that young scholars will mistakenly publish here, and their work will be tarnished.
The lack of DOI is troubling – papers will be lost to oblivion. Even more so is the concern I have that the journal is not actually peer-reviewed – although cryptic, it seems that the “advisory board” of the journal also serve as reviewers for papers. This is not legitimate peer-review.
↧
Comment on Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI by Ken Lanfear
Sorry, Jeff. I didn’t mean to imply you were alleging bad faith. However, “I recommend that researchers stay away from the Journal of …” seems a pretty harsh sentence for a journal just exercising its business judgement.
↧
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by Jeffrey Beall
Then I don’t understand why the papers have the same URL as the journal: http://www.euromed.uk.com/
↧
Comment on Hijacked Journals by Jeffrey Beall
Okay, I have added this case to the hijacked journals list. Thank you.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Nova Rugayah
Hi Jeffrey….could you explain what’s your criteria for deciding a publisher is on your list…..thanks
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
