Quantcast
Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog



Channel Description:

Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing

older | 1 | .... | 280 | 281 | (Page 282) | 283 | 284 | .... | 541 | newer

    0 0

    I had a look at some more articles (see my comment below) and it looks like many/all of the article on this site are duplicated/plagiarised from elsewhere.


    0 0

    Wow, what an original thought. None of these arguments have ever been made before. You’re really insightful. I’m sure Elsevier is really frightened now.


    0 0

    Thanks for a lot of merit in your answer.


    0 0

    […] giorni fa, Jeffrey Beall segnalava “Three Principles of Akkie Management”, uscito nel 2013 sull’American […]


    0 0

    Somebody has clearly worked out a winning formula:

    Dr. [given name] [middle initial] [family name]
    University of [random city]

    Ye gods but the English is poor on that website. Not very convincingly Australian.


    0 0

    Now I am intrigued as to whom has gone through the thread systematically downvoting every comment.


    0 0

    It seems to happen in most of Jeffrey’s threads. I guess it’s predators who resent this blog.


    0 0

    Thank you for providing this information. I couldn’t imagine why I (a most unscientific person) would have received an email offer to “become an Editorial Member.” Now I have clarification.


    0 0

    I would like to share some bad experience with MDPI as an author and a reviewer, that both show the way this journal is managed. As an author, I felt the reviews mediocre, and not detailed. But what I am particularly concerned is that the editor asked me to cite more papers from their journal. This is of course a way to make increase their impact factor… And it worked, in 2 years the journal ‘remote sensing’ doubled its impact factor reaching now 2.62.

    Now, as a reviewer, I was really disappointed by the way the editor took into account my comments. For at least two of the reviews I did, editors just even didn’t resend the paper for a second round of review after major considerations, accepting the paper as it. For a third paper, the editor asked for a second round of review, but let me only 1 week to comment. It was a week I was away from my email. So when I came back I directly did the review and sent my comments. They answered it was too late and the paper was already accepted… This is of course a way to increase their statistics between time of submission and acceptance.

    So I won’t advise anyone to submit a paper at least to this journal (‘remote sensing’). I don’ know about the other ones of MDPI. For my specific case, I am now really disappointed to have a nice study published in such a crappy journal.


    0 0

    Allow me to pimp my own blogpost on the topic:
    http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/must-be-your-eyes-up-on-mars-but-it.html
    (essentially an extended remix of the comment above).


    0 0

    The names of other journals are also copied. “International Journal of Finance and Economics” is also the name of a journal published by Wiley. More and more, I find it hard to look at a person’s publication list and make a judgement, given predatory journals sometimes have the same names as real journals I recognize.


    0 0

    I confess, here in the Southern Hemisphere I often confuse ‘up’ and ‘down’.


    0 0

    As you may expect, some posts related to controversial topics (like climate) attract more down-votes and unusual comments than others. For example,
    http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/07/16/recognizing-a-pattern-of-problems-in-pattern-recognition-in-physics/


    0 0

    Sounds like we need a new DSM V diagnosis: borderline predatory journal added to the list of other predatory journals including narcissistic, schizotypal, but also paranoid and histrionic predatory journals, non avoidant, anti social and dependent predatory journals. Then of course there are psychopathic, careless, obsessive compulsive predatory journals, not to mention depressive.


    0 0

    Dear Jeffrey
    Please, what can i do I have already sent to Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg Journal,! but i didnt send mony
    But may I submit the same article to another journal?


    0 0

    Let me just say that I won’t go to editing wars on Wikipedia, but when I edited the web page of Frontiers to this effect, my entry was deleted immediately, presumably because reports posted on a blog (as opposed to a reputable blog post /new source) are considered a Reputable Source for citation purposes.

    In other words, if and only if a magazine were to report on these non-discriminatory, wide-net-casting, border-line spamming and solely-financially-motivated practices of Frontiers then such a wikipedia entry could be added.

    If there’s any such a reporter reading this, I’d be glad to engage in conversation, but with my lab/students/responsibilities, I don’t have time to push this on my own. We never publish in Frontiers on principle, and I don’t review for them. To my thinking they do more damage to my field (cognitive neuroscience) than any other single factor.


    0 0

    hi Sir,
    which of the following websites are fake?

    https://pharmascope.org/ijrls/

    http://ijrls.com/


    0 0

    I recommend you e-mail this journal and say, “I want to withdraw my article entitled (title) effective immediately. Please send me a confirmation that the article is withdrawn.” Save a copy of the e-mail you send and save copies of any emails you receive. Good luck.

    Jeffrey Beall


    0 0

    This is not as uncommon as some commenters here have said. I received the same email four days after accepting to review a paper. Four days!

    Dear Dr. Sandy Ofori ,

    Thank you for agreeing to review this manuscript.

    You may appreciate that, we are committed to complete the peer-review formalities within a strict time frame, to help the authors. As a result of constant effort of our editorial team, we have already received minimum number of quality review comments to complete the peer review of this manuscript.

    So, very politely we want to inform you that in this occasion, we would not be able to use your valuable comments. We are sorry for the inconvenience.

    As per our policy, when we receive minimum number of review comments, we inform other agreed reviewers to save their precious time.
    But we will be delighted if we can get your expert comments for our future manuscripts. We are thankful to you for agreeing to spend your valuable time for this review.

    With regards

    Partha Dey

    SCIENCEDOMAIN international

    http://www.sciencedomain.org

    Reg. Offices:

    UK: SCIENCEDOMAIN international, Third Floor, 207 Regent Street, London, W1B 3HH,UK,Registered in England and Wales, Company Registration Number: 8988029
    USA: SCIENCEDOMAIN international, One Commerce Centre, 1201, Orange St. # 600, Wilmington, New Castle, Delaware, USA, Corporate File Number: 5049777
    India: SCIENCEDOMAIN international, U GF, DLF City Phase-III, Gurgaon, 122001, Delhi NCR, Corp. Firm Registration Number: 255 (2010-11)
    Editorial office: SCIENCEDOMAIN international, Guest House Road, Street no – 1/6, Tarakeswar, Hooghly, WB, 712410, India, Corp. Firm Registration Number: L77527.

    Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If you have any further queries, you can contact at the Registered Office of this publisher. If verification is required please request a signed hard-copy/scanned version. Our company accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing.


    0 0

    hamash timbakir said “border-line spamming and solely-financially-motivated practices of Frontiers ”
    If it wasn’t for journals like frontiers with fairer and more transparent peer review practices many novel and interesting ideas just wouldn’t get published because they challenge hegemonic orthodoxy and self interested dogmatism.
    there is obviously a ‘scientific’ need for the revolution in OA to flourish in this way that goes beyond mere commercial opportunity because
    1. Traditional journal practices just aren’t meeting all the needs of the scientific community
    2. There is a power struggle between the traditional printing mechanisms and OA for control of scientific ideas ostensibly in the name of quality control. There is a real thirst for a greater diversity in ideas that aren’t vetoed by anonymous individuals
    3. OA represents a greater democratization of the scientific endeavour and that will naturally be vigorously fought by more authoritarian tendencies.


older | 1 | .... | 280 | 281 | (Page 282) | 283 | 284 | .... | 541 | newer