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

Comment on Appeals by Mr. Arshley Smith

0
0

Dear Beall:

I would request you to please remove the publisher “rutveg.com” from your list other wise we can fire a case against you in us court..

Tc
Regards Rutveg Team


Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Harry Hab

0
0

It’s a wonderful thing, PNAS – it passes for prestigious at the UK university where I work, but this is certainly not the first piece of wackiness I’ve seen!

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I think that researchers should avoid all journals published by IISTE. I recommend that you find a better publisher than IISTE.

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by DeanOfDC

0
0

To those saying that Herndon’s apparently fabricated data is not included in this paper, please check the appendices and note that “Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India” by Herndon, J. M. has been used as a source for this paper, specifically the rainfall “fingerprint” which includes the questionable data.

Whilst I accept it’s infeasible to expect editors or reviewers to fully investigate unrelated sources and references, one would hope that an author using their own work as a such would undergo increased scrutiny.

The risks of not doing so seem obvious.

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by DeanOfDC

0
0

@Kenji

“Thank you for your reply. However, are there any accurate figures which prove that MDPI has published relatively more ‘dodgy’ articles than other reputable publishers?”

I appreciate your response also.

I’m certain a general discussion on the relative merits of different publishers could make for a wide ranging and interesting discourse, and accept there may well be even worse publishers out there. Still, I’m unsure gauging their comparative position vs other publishers is particularly relevant to a discussion of MDPI’s specific failings.

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Jtom

0
0

How similar was the detected fly ash to the fly ash emitted by volcanoes? There are twenty-two active volcanoes (per volcanoes.org) as I type this, and California is adjacent to the ring of fire. I would be stunned if the atmospheric levels of it were undetectable (a result of our ability to detect extremely minute quantities, not necessarily a reflection of the quantity of it in the air).

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Dr. Mohit Bhatia

0
0

Dear Sir
First of all thank you for responding! I am neither on the editorial board of this journal nor am I a publisher. I am a medical professional and had sent a manuscript to this journal for evaluation. However, after reading your reply I may consider withdrawing my manuscript from this journal. But, I still believe that your assessment about scholarly open access publishing is flawed and needs further evaluation.

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Bernd

0
0

The solution is to shift away from blacklisting the bad apples, but to assume that are journals are crap unless every issue contains several papers by well-respective scientists in the field. For instance, in physics there are maybe something like two dozen journals that are really relevant.


Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Schiachimismo e cenere volante | OggiScienza

0
0

[…] of Environmental Research and Public Health è la rivista di un predone indiano con indirizzo svizzero. Per le statistiche e i grafici herndoniani, si rimanda alla puntigliosa analisi di […]

Comment on Is SciELO a Publication Favela? by Nota de apoio ao SciELO | RIPeHP

0
0

[…] produzida pelos editores de diferentes revistas brasileiras que se reúnem no SciELO contra artigo publicado pelo sr. Jerry […]

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Franck Vazquez

0
0

This response is from Dr. Franck Vazquez, Chief Scientific Officer of MDPI since February 2015.
I became aware of the potential problems with this paper on August 25th and have been discussing since then with the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Office and the author. We will make a decision on this manuscript very soon.

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

You already did make a decision on the manuscript. You published it.

Comment on OMICS Publishing Group’s Abuse of Researchers: More Evidence by Scarlet

0
0

I refused to revise the manuscript and ask for retraction. They ask me for $119 to withdrawn. What should I do now

Comment on Two OA Journals Share the Same Title and Each Claims the Other is Not Legitimate by Dr. Robert Browne

Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by Marc Silberman (@njsportsmed)

0
0

Dr. Silberman’s 2013 article Bicycling Injuries in Current Sports Medicine Reports was plagiarized verbatim in a chapter in a book by Springer in 2015. It has been almost a month since this was reported and no action has been taken. It took me 2 minutes to discover the plagiarism simply doing a google search for another chapter I was writing for Netter’s Sports Medicine. Springer published MY ABSTRACT from the CSMR article VERBATIM. The ACSM who owns the copyright of my work would not assign the rights back over to me to take real action. They are taking a soft stance as well.

Dr. Silberman article: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr/Fulltext/2013/09000/Bicycling_Injuries.15.aspx

Springer chapter: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-662-46491-5_48


Comment on Five Ways to Defeat Automated Plagiarism Detection by Malcolm Mumme

0
0

Speaking of avoiding detection,
I receive spam from a conference which seems to be from a publisher on your list, but the spam almost avoided using any words that would make it easy to find them on your web page (scholarlyoa.com).
By searching and coincidence I just happened to see what looks like a match to one of your listed predatory publishers.
There seem to be a couple of new conference names in this email.
I would like to send this info in a less public way than posting here.
How shall I proceed?

Comment on Open Access Journal Provides One-Day Peer Review by Muhammad

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Leo

0
0

It is still relevant to contrast and compare with other publishers, especially those considered to have set the standard. The ideal scenario would be if everybody runs a zero-tolerant policy towards bad publishing. But a dichotomous view of dividing publishers into ones who never published bogus papers versus those who ever “failed” will inevitably lead to comical effects since most (if not every) reputable journal will find themselves in the former category. Science had e.g. the arsenic bacteria paper, Nature published papers with fabricated data from Haruko Obokata as well as failed paper by Martin Nowak, and let’s not forget how much bullshit has appeared in PNAS via the fast-track backdoor “direct submission” model. Bottom line is since every publisher is run by people we could accept there is a certain baseline of mishappenings due to human-errors. From there we can check how far away the said publishers/journals deviates from the baseline and make judgement.

I just checked the reference of the paper with the fabricated data by Herndon, J. M. in the MDPI paper, it’s reference #12 and cited rather inconspicuously in a comment. I think not detecting fabrication here could be considered a borderline case. It would be far more damning for MDPI if the repeatedly cited #10 were fake.

Comment on Frontiers Launches OA Library Science Journal by Leo

0
0

Dear Mr. Beall, I’m flattered to see that you read my comments. I never meant to offend anybody and I’m sorry if you felt that way. I worked closely with active researchers who serve as unpaid part-time editors in reputable OA journals. Recently my research group also helped organize an international conference. I’ve seen firsthand how people invest much energy and time out of altruism while others rather stick to their own research. Compared to the sacrifices of the unpaid editors even gratis publications in the journals they serve hardly compensates (not to mention many are capable scientists capable of publishing in top tier journals e.g. Science or PNAS so utilizing the discount-perk is often a downgrade for their papers). I don’t know about Frontiers but unlike “herr doktor bimler” it’s clear to me that publication fee discount for editorship in general is a horrendous deal for people who only care for money. It is a good way tho for the publishers to show appreciation for the unpaid work. To the altruistic acts of people in science (e.g. the unpaid editors or Mr. Beall for introducing the useful list) I have nothing but my utmost respect and I strongly despise those who remotely suggest they act on ulterior motives.

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)

0
0

I’m glad to hear that you are looking into this paper.

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images