Reblogged this on <a href="https://heavensairportcoffeeshoprestaurant.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/article-spinning-a-plagiarism-technique-for-the-21st-century/" rel="nofollow">Subspace Radio Signals</a>.
Comment on Article Spinning: A Plagiarism Technique for the 21st Century by Subspace Radio Signals
↧
↧
Comment on Article Spinning: A Plagiarism Technique for the 21st Century by herr doktor bimler
Seems a lot of work, turning a worthless paper into absolute nonsense, when neither the publisher of the nonsense nor the publisher of the original crap paper would have noticed or cared if it had been plagiarised verbatim.
↧
Comment on Article Spinning: A Plagiarism Technique for the 21st Century by Roger Carter
A real comedy of sequential errors here. One worthless paper copying another worthless paper which copies a probably worthless thesis chapter (which led to a worthless PhD).
↧
Comment on Article Spinning: A Plagiarism Technique for the 21st Century by Ellie fant
I don’t get it, who are these authors (Mian, K., Abbas, S. Z., Kazimi, M. R., Rasheed, F. U., Raza, A., & Iqbal, S. M. Z.)? And what do they have to gain? Are these real people or fictitious names?
↧
Comment on Article Spinning: A Plagiarism Technique for the 21st Century by L_C
You can usually find each of them listed on their corresponding University’s website where they will be listed as faculty under their respective departments. In this instance, almost all of the authors from both papers have an affiliation with the University of Karachi (either as a professor (a significant proportion of the professors at this school are former Karachi PhD students) or a former PhD student). In fact, they both even have factually who work in the same department, notably the Institute of Space & Planetary Astrophysics. So, one may question the extent to which the original authors are ignorant of the plagiarism. The copiers purposely chose this paper, a paper connected with their University, their departments, and their colleagues. Also, they all seem to frequently publish with one another. For instance, the first author of the original paper, M. Ayub Khan Yousuf Zai, has published articles with Khusro Mian, one of the authors from the second nonsense paper. They are all appear connected to the extent that, if one author were to be investigated for plagiarism, they may all be subject to scrutiny, which seems unlikely to occur. Maybe they all now benefit from protecting this practice since this would also mean protecting themselves?
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Lessa
Respected Beall
I read your information very interesting. Could you please tell me about the status of
– Journal of Renewable Agriculture
– Asian Academic Research Journal of Multidisciplinary
– Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
– International Research Journal of Horticulture
Some of them seem to be located in USA but it seems it is not true.
Thanks a lot
↧
Comment on Large, New OA Publishers Continue to Appear — Two Recent Examples by Madhavi velama
Thank you Bell. we are fooled by lot of journals like Juniper Publishers. we received lot of spam invitations to submit article. this journal is hyderabad based. how shall we trust with out any indexing impact factor. dont publish with this journals they are truly fake for money. no proper emails
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by john mark
Hello, I have published in one of the journals from the list above a couple of years ago without realizing that it was one of the predatory publishers.
Is it possible to withdraw a paper after being published in a predatory journal? if not, is it ethical to resubmit a “slightly” improved version of the paper to another journal with or without referring to the original paper?
↧
Comment on A New Clone of OMICS Publishing Group: MedCrave by sudhiip
we are fooled by lot of journals like Medcraveonline. we received lot of spam invitations to submit article. this journal is hyderabad based. how shall we trust with out any indexing impact factor. dont publish with this journals they are truly fake for money. no proper emails
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Nathon
Hello, I have published in one of the journals from the list above a couple of years ago without realizing that it was one of the predatory publishers.
Is it possible to withdraw a paper after being published in a predatory journal? if not, is it ethical to resubmit a “slightly” improved version of the paper to another journal with or without referring to the original paper?
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
It’s generally more trouble than it’s worth to pull a paper from one journal and successfully submit it to another, especially if the author has transferred copyright to the first journal. If you do this, you need to be completely transparent with the second journal. Slightly revising a published (not withdrawn) paper and submitting it to a new journal may have significant legal (copyright) and ethical problems. Always be completely open and honest with the new publisher when submitting any previously-published work.
Overall, I recommend using the original article as a learning experience. Write a new and better article and submit it to a strong journal
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by mark
I have published two papers at Psyche, from Hindawi. I will tell of my experience here.
Psyche was a very reputable journal in past decades, especially among researchers working with social insects. Hindawi decided to revive this journal, and spread a good marketing about it, while managing to amass a good list of reputed editors from the field. Also they were good enough to include in their website .pdfs to all papers by Psyche from the old days, all available for free. I thus decided to publish two relevant papers in it as it looked like a very promising growing, open-acces journal. I was quite satisfied with the quality of peer-review, and I guess I got reviews from experienced peers in my field. I must mention, however, that they asked me for a list of prospective reviewers, and I do not like this practice by principle.
Upon publication problems started to show: there is no editor in chief or handling editor, thus formatting and proofs are made by a series of secretaries with weird names, each at a time, and they kept asking unusual demands on file formats and file names, while including many typos and mistakes in the proofs. This problem hit me when publishing both papers. There was no responsible editor to complain about this, or asking for guidance, only several non-scientist secretaries.
Eventually I managed to publish each paper free of errors, and final quality was good, easy to find, and open-access.
However I must say that my papers did not make the expected impact, suggesting that readers do not really read them or take them seriously enough. I am not sure about the reasons, but maybe because it is an open-access publisher.
After many years since its re-inauguration, Psyche still does not have an impact factor. In the endpoint, I feel publishing at Psyche from Hindawi was not a good choice.
↧
Comment on Article Spinning: A Plagiarism Technique for the 21st Century by The Iron Chemist
They’re not exactly spinning straw into gold here, are they?
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
The <em>Journal of Renewable Agriculture</em> is published by a firm called SciKnow, and this publisher is included on my <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">list</a>, so I recommend that you not publish in this journal.
The <em>Asian Academic Research Journal of Multidisciplinary</em> is a completely bogus journal, and it's published by a firm called Asian Academic Research Associates, which is also included on my list.
The <em>Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies</em> is included on my <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">standalone journal list</a>, and I recommend that you avoid getting bitten by it and avoid it completely.
<em>International Research Journal of Horticulture</em> — this journal is also published by SciKnow (like the first one above), so it should be avoided completely.
Good luck.
↧
Comment on New Diagnostic Pathology Journal Copies Existing Journal Title by Jeffrey Beall
Agreed, this is the hijacked version of a legitimate journal. I have it included on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/hijacked-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Thanks.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by GMOs and Junk Science – Project Syndicate | Antigua Chronicle
[…] appeared in a low-impact “pay-for-play” journal, Agricultural Sciences, which is produced by a “predatory” publisher. Within days of publication, anti-biotechnology organizations like the Organic Consumers […]
↧
Comment on New Fake Metric Company Sells Nine Bogus Metrics to Publishers by Author
i think the blog is part of strategy for a publicity, i was observing IFSIJ website, hits are suddenly increased to the website after this blog.. whom to trust is biggest problem
↧
↧
Comment on The Decline of Medicine, a Wolters Kluwer Health Megajournal by Felix Freshwater
A few weeks ago I had a MS rejected by a W-K owned surgery journal and was offered the opportunity of having it transferred to Medicine. I declined the offer.
↧
Comment on The Decline of Medicine, a Wolters Kluwer Health Megajournal by celvesta
I was in Editorial Board of this Medicine Journal. They have fired me from the Editorial Board, because I was not agree with the publication of an article. To the article in question, a review was for, and another reviewer was against. And I said no. To this journal, the person from Editorial Boarrd does not have the final decision in publication of an article, but rather those of their stuff.
↧
Comment on The Decline of Medicine, a Wolters Kluwer Health Megajournal by J.J.
Another example of the detrimental effect of the conflict of interest present when journals receive money when they accept papers.
It baffles me how many scientists can be overly zealous in their scrutiny when research is funded by private companies (“unconscious bias” and whatnot) and yet be perfectly OK with monetary incentive to accept papers.
Let’s bring editorial rejection back into fashion, or good science will drown in an ocean of crap.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
