Comments for Scholarly Open Access

Some of the ‘scam artists’ may be sincere in their intentions, but given the vast number of redundant and nonsensical journals being created, they have to make some real effort to distinguish their attempts to assist research communication.

At the same time, the research community in each country, discipline, and internationally needs to make some effort to make the screening and rating of new journals fair, informative, and effective. The present blog is just one small step in this direction.

New journals should not make any claims about reputation, and sincerely-managed journals that are new, and that can potentially offer a useful service to researchers and readers, should not be punished for not yet having a reputation.

Are you sure of this about textroad journal. I am about to pay for my paper to be published

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Jan

Yes Jan but these journals are far more bathwater than baby.

Open access is a good idea ; predatory journals are the problem not those who caution against predatory journals

Can you please see the following journal “World Journal of Pathology” http://www.npplweb.com/wjp/default.aspx
Which seems to be published by Narain Publishers Private Limited in India (http://www.npplweb.com/).
Most journals have an impressive editorial board, and most articles across journals are published by same group of authors !!!
Likely inclusion in your list of suspect publishers.

Here’s one I found..

http://www.hindawi.com/

They apparently publish over 300 open-access journals :-).. Didn’t realise how widespread the problem is.

Another fun fact: the first and second journals in the image have the same name: the translation of the first journal from Hindi to English results in the second journal. Wonder if other journals should start doing that.

Hi Jeffrey,

I just noticed that Versita Open has been dropped from your watchlist. Are there any reasons why?

Regards,
Murphy

Actually, I don’t have a watchlist anymore, just a list. Versita Open was bought by de Gruyter, a German publisher. I think they are making many worthy improvements to Versita, and it is not on my list. Thanks.

This is a widespread problem with many articles. Fortunately many of them got caught in a pre-submission stage. I had cases where 70-90% of Introduction/discussion were copied verbatim from several sources. It is mind-blowing, frankly. Considering how easy it is to feed whole manuscript to google I am not sure what these people think they are doing.

[...] One firm selling these addresses is SciData, which substitutes the “@” for “a” in its logo, indicating that email is @ the heart of their business. I won’t use that here because it’s just too visually annoying. Jeffrey Beall recently wrote about SciData on his Scholarly OA blog. [...]

[...] egy kis keresést, és hamar kiderült, hogy ismeret átverésről van szó. (másik hasonló történet) Aki már vett részt bírálati folyamatban, talán nem [...]

The second issue of Journal of Buffalo Science is now online. The September 2012 issue contains a Theme Section entitled “Use of Reproductive Techniques in Buffalo” edited by Dr. Vittoria L. Barile (Italy). The section contains six papers on various aspects of this topic. The issue also includes a general articles section containing five papers covering various areas of interest on buffalo related research. Lifescience Global also announced that all articles of the first issue (Volume 1 Number 1) are now available in OPEN ACCESS and can be downloaded with full text in PDF.

Guido, the standards are somewhat different. Direct text copying even with proper attribution is considered plagiarism. Even in humanities where direct quotation is (much) more common such a borrowing will be frowned upon and the “authors” will be requested to make corrections. In all STEM fields direct quotation is used rarely and P4-P6 will be considered plagiarism by most editors.

Honestly, I don’t view this act as a “prank,” but a dishonest act. If the prankster was serious about testing the integrity of the publisher, he could have waited for acceptance but refused to pay the OA fee.

Second, I doubt that the editor of an African journal would catch on to a joke routed in Indonesian popular culture.

And last, to a non-Indonesian, this paper looks like a legitimate submission.

In sum, there is little to learn from this act except that this African journal does not use a plagiarism detection service, like CrossCheck. I don’t think it means anything about the state of open access publishing.

Open Access Publisher Accepts Nonsense for Dollars
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/

I think both articles are fake. “Pejabat Palsu” is not a common name. “Pejabat Palsu” means fake bureaucrat/false official.

The original second author named “Pejabat Palsu” is most likely also fake. It means “False Office”.

But the original article seems a fraud as well. Pejabat palsu is not a person name. You should clarify more.

The ‘original’ paper is also a prank. The second author “Pejabat Palsu” means “Fake Officer” .The content of the paper is plagiarized from internet materials

please, check this website and it’s four journals;

http://growingscience.com/index.html

you could aware students who submit their paper to these journals, especially “management science letters”
publisher didn’t say anything about author fee, but if your paper accepted, you will be aware of publishing fee and should pay!
at the other hand, all of papers are published in the framework which is very similar to sciencedirect!…
please write about this publisher and its journals…

Latest Images