Fazel has been busy today. I also received an e mail where he listed one of my previous papers by title. Very glad I googled and saw this warning!
Comment on Questionable Subscription Publisher Acts Like a Predatory OA One by M. Burger
↧
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by John
Based on the amount of spam that I receive from them (mostly calls for papers in special issues), the fact that their automated emails do not feature a “unsubscribe me” link, and the fact that I did not manage to be removed from their lists after several complaints, I would say that they are not a respectable publisher, at all!
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by Zky
In order to elude people, MDPI clearly cheat and steal brand names from reputable one-word journals like Cell, Science, Nature to create their one-word predatory journals. In many cases, by adding a “S” to so many famous journals, like Cells (Cell), Cancers (Cancer), Genes (Gene), and so on (e.g. Proteomes – Proteomics).
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by From Morocco
If you are a MDPI lawyer, the lengthy comment is understandable. If not, I wonder why you are defending this publisher which its principle objective is to make MONEY.
When there is some research subjects of great importance, a journal launch a special issue, to highlight if there is a progress in this area and suggesting the perspective …
But MDPI and other professional predatory publisher (Hindawi …) find a new way by launching special issues rather a new journal to make MONEY. They do not care about progress in research and they prefer researchers from developing countries as an easy target they knew these countries suffer from low quality of research principally due to resources …
In these predatory journals you can find more mini-review than original research articles (low quality). I rather better add the suffix Wiki (wikiMDPI, wikiHindawi, …)
Concerning the free of charge paper on “Misconduct in Scientific Publishing” Helene Z Hill, please be reasonable MDPI and other predatory publishers are well known for misconduct. It’s quite similar to the plagiarized article on the subject of plagiarism http://retractionwatch.com/2015/04/01/you-cant-make-this-stuff-up-plagiarism-guideline-paper-retracted-for-plagiarism/#more-27050
NB. Professional predatory publisher means they are not completely bogus publisher such as Omics and ScienceDomain. The later perform an open peer-review (take a closer look and you will see it’s a completely joke!).
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by JB
Indeed Keith, well pointed!
Have anyone heard about a high quality publishers sending spam invitations or inviting low quality guest editors? Certainly not, because that’s the feature of predatory publishers, like MDPI, Hindawi and OMICS. They all operate using the same predatory machinery.
So, with so many high quality OA journals and publishers, why some authors choose these ones to publish their research? Just because their papers would be easily accepted? What about theirs reputation within the scientific community?
↧
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by JB
Tleski, here is another special issue on the same topic i.e. Antibiotic Resistance, but launched by another mdpi journal (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/genes/special_issues/antibiotic-resistance). So, they don’t have any control on the topics. They just launch as many special issues as possible in order to send more predatory invitations.
Unfortunately, some leading scientists, like Dr. Laurent Poirel, are being deluded by MDPI. I believe they should be alerted of that, because they surely are not aware of the bad reputation of this publisher. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be involved with a predatory journal.
↧
Comment on Bogus Journal Accepts Profanity-Laced Anti-Spam Paper by El timo de la estampita científica | Ciencias mixtas
[…] ilustra mejor el extremo al que llega el problema que el caso del estudio creado en 2005 por los científicos computacionales David Mazières y Eddie Kohl…. Hartos de recibir toneladas de spam invitándolos a conferencias no deseadas, escribieron un […]
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by Weekend reads: Sexism from a Nobel laureate; publisher deception; irreproducibility's price tage - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch
[…] The editor of a special issue of an MDPI journal says the publisher is trying to deceive people. […]
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by Nep
I have some experience with MDPI. It is not only one side of the coin. There is no question that these newly emerged publications are for money, but the extent differs. I am surprised here that people are continuously attacking open access, but I have never seen people questioned to the reputed scientist from respect university who are willing to serve as editors and editor in chief in these journals. Why should not we ask them what are they doing on the Editorial board. I don’t believe that they do not know about these journals. Absolutely, they know, but they are willing to serve, why, because nothing is completely white or black. They have their own agenda there, either for promotion, or become more famous or what? So, all these scientists who are serving and supporting these journals either should defend their journal saying that they are doing their jobs or should resign. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter how much we write here, the fact is, scientist need paper, if their paper keeps rejecting, there are always these open access to save their work, either it is good or bad.
I published one paper in MDPI myself, paid for the paper, there were four reviewers who did a fair job, took two rounds to finalize, no rush until they were satisfied. It is what the big name journals do, they also entirely depend on the reviewers. I would say MDPI is predatory publication, but it had helped many scientists in different ways. So blaming MDPI doesn’t end the story, but I think, it is a start of new publication business.
↧
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by tleski
I am sorry Nep but you do not seem to understand the problem here. The real problem is not that they are for profit, the problem is that they are using deception and lies to make money damaging the whole scholarly publishing business in the process and diluting the scientific record with a deluge of worthless papers. I am not sure what is the agenda of some respected scientist serving on their editorial boards or acting as guest editors, editors or reviewers. It may be many things. Most likely they are not aware of the shadiness of this operation, possibly they do not have time for verification who are they dealing with. I can also imagine that some people may be paid to promote the brand. I have no proof for that, but it defies my imagination why would they want to associate with a publisher with a questionable reputation.
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by Grim Reaper
In fact, this is not completely true. Serious concerns were raised about at least one paper in that special issue by Grant Steen, which took also about 2 years – or more – to develop. A challenge was officially submitted to the journal, as a letter, and the submission got squashed – both by Dr. Steen and by the MPMI management who actually closed down my account to prevent me from resubmitting the letter – to avoid the critical evaluation of the paper that was, as you put it, “peer reviewed”. Fortunately, the discussion and criticisms are openly available at Retraction Watch (see comments section):
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/27/a-rating-system-for-retractions-how-various-journals-stack-up/
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by Grim Reaper
Sofia, this is an anonymous forum, so you are protected. Please reveal the exact identities of those names, and how you know what “routes of black money” they are receiving. If we only have broad public accusations wthout any solid proof (e.g., e-mails posted publicly), then the accusations are baseless.
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by Grim Reaper
There is only one real and viable solut ion to revealing the academic rot of this publisher, if there is any. To reexaine published papers and to reveal flaws and problems, as a post-publication peer review. Use PubPeer as the platform because each paper will link to PubPeer via the DOI, and comments can be made anonymously. For example, I complained anonymously in January 2015 about problems with a paper. By March, the paper had been retracted:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/A24FAF0D5D2B0DDE8E811876ECC93A#fb20319
That indicates that peer review at that journal FAILED. If there are enough retractions, then this says loads about the authors, but it also begins to paint a real picture about the publisher, too. The issue of e-mail campaigns and the modus operandii will gradually start to get similar between “traditional” and “predatory” publishers, so the “predatory” model will start to get diluted, diffused, and confusing (actually it already is). So, the only salvation for academia is post-publication peer review.
My plea to the broad scientific community: set aside 30 minutes each day to voluntarily rereview already published papers and get those critiques published publicly at PubPeer.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Science Research Journals: A Dangerous Publisher, Keep Clear by Grim Reaper
The style of the covers are identical to Academic Journals, of Nigeria, when they started out.
↧
Comment on OA Publisher to Peer Reviewer: Never Mind by ICC
Another example of “research” published by this journal, with ample potential of damage to society as various internet “news” sites pick it up: http://earhustle411.com/nigerian-professor-creates-drug-that-cures-hiv-aids-in-2-months/
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by Nep
I agree most of the part, but if you are being a police and say I am not aware who is thief, it is not enough justification for me at least. Don’t blame these shady publications, everyone knows, the editor and editor and chief should be accountable of their individual journals. That is how the big journal works. Everyone can disagree with me, but if editors and editors in chief are accountable of their job, I am sure 95% of this problem will be reduced and another 95% of journal will out of business without editorial board.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
Thank you, I do not want to add this journal to my list at this time. It has some weaknesses, but I cannot make a case for adding it to the list. I will monitor it.
↧
↧
Comment on Serbian Journal Accepts Paper in 24 Hours with No Peer Review, Demands EUR 1785 by JATdS
Errata, corrigenda, and retractions by ABS are started to be recorded at Retraction Watch:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/07/serbian-journal-lands-in-hot-water-after-challenge-on-24-hour-peer-review-that-cost-1785-euros/
A summary will then also be copied here at scholarlyoa for the public scientific record. In the past week, this is what has taken place:
a) detection of three existent retractions, one labelled as an erratum.
b) the issuing of one corrigendum to replace a PDF file with tables that were missing in the original manuscript, but leaving the final page numbers inconsistent online vs on the PDF;
c) a corrigendum to correct overlapping data in tables/figures of two publications;
d) a retraction within 3 days:
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?ID=0354-46641500074E#.VXiVHsuJjIV
https://pubpeer.com/publications/758F4DCA3E5950490427FB9C9B4360#fb31711
e) an apparent duplication in a 2014 ABS paper and a 2015 Thai journal manuscript (but confirmed by the EIC, Dr. Goran Poznanovic).
f) The detection of an apparent duplication of the same ABS paper in two consecutive ABS issues of the same volume:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/178F8C845F8C3CE971B4ADF08449B2#fb31761
↧
Comment on Another Strange New OA Publisher with a Strange Name by Keith Fraser
1. Go on blog about substandard and dishonest journals to promote journal featuring plagiarism, page number doctoring and fake impact statistics.
2. ???
3. Profit
↧
Comment on Guest Editing a Special Issue with MDPI: Evidences of Questionable Actions by the Publisher by Hagar
I had a paper recently published with MDPI, which I deeply regret as now it is obvious I was victim of a predatory publisher (I thought indeed strange that there are papers completely out of the scope of the issue published, while the few others published I never heard of the authors). But I learned the lesson and will avoid publishing in MDPI hereafter. It would be terrible that a colleague think that my data or my research, obtained after a hard work, is questionable because it was published in a MDPI journal. Thanks to Jeffrey and the guest editors who endorsed this post for their courage to reveal in details how a predatory publisher works.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
