[…] things separately. Yes, there is authoritative information in library databases. But there are also questionable journals in these databases. Conversely, there is plenty of good, scholarly content available for free on the web, especially […]
Comment on Scholarly Indexes are Unwittingly “Legitimizing” Corrupt Publishers by The “Why” of the Library | Beyond the Stacks
↧
↧
Comment on Under Pressure, MDPI Tries to Clean House, Retracts Paper by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi
I admit that I just was asked to peer review a paper for an MDPI journal. I had no idea it was an MDPI journal at the time I conducted the review and it appeared that the journal was based in Switzerland. The math and modeling for the paper were fine but some of the statements were not supported by evidence and the author was going way too far in his conclusions. The paper was in my area in which I have published book chapters and academic articles in traditional (closed access) venues. I recommended some revisions of the paper and provided suggested citations.
I always thought that these predatory publishers were literally ‘pay to publish’ and because other faculty members objected to us using your list, we provided an appeal service at my university whereby if the faculty member demonstrates that the paper was substantively peer reviewed by providing author feedback that is constructive and improves the paper, we would count the publication towards tenure and promotion.
Now I do not know what to make of this. Is it possible that these publishers are trying to go legit? I do know I was asked to review the paper in less than 10 days, which is a far shorter time frame than usual but I did check a few moments ago and this particular MDPI journal is a ‘no pay’ journal for 2015 (though after this year, who knows? They will probably go to the author pay model). This is all so confusing. I never would have thought a ‘no pay’ journal that ask for academic reviews from competent experts would be considered a predatory journal.
I used to think if you got a request from a journal to referee an article, you should always accept if it is within your area of expertise, but is this still the case? Did I just unwittingly assist a shady operator or is this a case where redemption is possible and thus I did the right thing in reviewing the manuscript? How can we establish bright line criteria when some journals are seemingly trying to do the right thing while others do not even bother to try?
↧
Comment on Under Pressure, MDPI Tries to Clean House, Retracts Paper by Rich Musser
my experience when I sent a paper to insects I had to go through two round of reviews to publish the paper. I am no slouch either nor my colleague on the paper who is a scientist from the Max Planck. Now had I known it was “questionable” I would not have submitted there as the work quite descent. That said nothing in my experience would suggest it was not legit as I have published in journal such as Nature. It reminded of a typical modest impact journal, never seemed like a complete give me. Also the final production looked professional and attractive: http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/5/3/668/htm
↧
Comment on The Decline of Medicine, a Wolters Kluwer Health Megajournal by Edoardo Villani
I am in the Editorial Board of Medicine and, at present, my acceptance rate is 40%. However I realize that there are some problems in this transition to OA (i.e. the lack of a well-recognized lead section editor) and I am trying to discuss these problems with the journal.
↧
Comment on Questionable Subscription Publisher Acts Like a Predatory OA One by Ginnie
Reni Koen is on a roll!
I would like to add to all the thanks for keeping up and maintaining this site! It is a great service to the community.
↧
↧
Comment on Article Spinning: A Plagiarism Technique for the 21st Century by solihu
Google Scholar even help me to get free versions of pay-walled articles. That is, the free versions archived in databases by authors. I do not think I can have that service from a journal index without paying.
↧
Comment on Article Spinning: A Plagiarism Technique for the 21st Century by Jeffrey Beall
You are correct — Google Scholar helps with the discovery and distribution of pirated scholarly content.
↧
Comment on Questionable Subscription Publisher Acts Like a Predatory OA One by JW
One more here from Reni Koen. They seem to come in waves, judging by the dates of posters above. Thanks for this site.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
Yes. Thank you for alerting me to this journal, which I hadn’t heard of before. I’ve analyzed it and found that it meets the criteria, so I’ve added it to my list.
↧
↧
Comment on Is SciELO a Publication Favela? by Toby (pseudonym, as La Carré aficionados will know)
Interesting discussion. There was bound to be a lot of aggro because we Latin Americans see the the yankees as our enemy, and this has some sort of basis in the USA internationl politics, a tradition of imperialism etc….. and we hate the bastards! But let’s face it, as scientists if we have something important to communicate, even perhaps a discovery (rare, but why not), we would never publish it in low profile journals such as those of the SciELO lot. We want to be read by our peers and they DO NOT read, and do not publish in, the BrazilianJapaneseFrontiers type of Journal. So we want to publish in the best possible Journal, to be read by our top level peers, and if we do not achieve that it must mean that we are not doing our work well. I agree with Beall (or is it Beally? Just joking Jeffrey) that putting our results in a SciELO or SciELO-like journal is to provide them with a perfect funeral service. It is my modest opinion that luring us into publishing (easily) in these Journals makes a disservice to Latin American science. Let us publish less, but let us do it better, in high profile Journals that unfortunately will generally be from the USA and a handful of European countries. But do not worry fellow Latin American scientists, our time will come, when Naturaleza, Ciencia y Célula serán las revistas de más alto índice de impacto en el mundo! But that time we will have eradicated the favelas, real and metaphoric ones!!
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by divyamaneesha
Respected sir,
thank you for your reply, what is your opinion about the journal “international journal of mathematical sciences and applications ijmsa” pls respond,
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by KN
Dear Kartic, You need to take legal action against the author and/or the publishers for this unshameful disregard for ethical issues.
↧
Comment on Article Spinning: A Plagiarism Technique for the 21st Century by solihu
I am not talking about pirated content. I am talking about articles that are legally archived (like preprint) in University and other databases.
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
This journal claims it has an impact factor, but in fact it does not have any legitimate impact factor. I have added it to my list. Pretending to have an impact factor is misleading to researchers, a serious breach of publishing ethics.
↧
Comment on The Decline of Medicine, a Wolters Kluwer Health Megajournal by Mello-Yello
Wolters Kluwer is quite a heavy weight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolters_Kluwer
This is not good news.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by divyamaneesha
respected sir,
Thank u for all ur service, i think i was too late to recognise the reality, my two research papers were published in these journals ijma and ijmsa, what to do now, is it effects my future career, pls provide the list of good journals which helps us to go away from such journals.
↧
Comment on Is the Editor of the Springer Journal Scientometrics indifferent to plagiarism? by FYP
It seems that Ghulam Akhmat and Khalid Zaman are used to plagiarize. Many other papers have been recognized to be plagiarism: “Impact of foreign political instability on Chinese exports”, “The relationship between foreign direct investment and pro-poor growth policies in Pakistan: The new interface”, “Effect of oil prices on trade balance: New insights into the cointegration relationship from Pakistan”, and so forth. (https://ideas.repec.org/k/plagiat.html)
↧
↧
Comment on The Decline of Medicine, a Wolters Kluwer Health Megajournal by Weekend reads: STAP saga over once and for all?; plagiarizing prof gets tenure - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch
[…] a mega-journal, is declining, says Jeffrey […]
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
I’m sorry; I focus my work on identifying deceptive and predatory journals and publishers. I do not publish any list of good journals.
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by CZpersi
They are still active. I have presented on international conference in Prague that has visible abstracts online and received their e-mail to submit an article into something called: “International Relations and Diplomacy”. Again, it has the pay-per-page policy: “It is not our policy to pay authors. Instead, the authors should pay $50 per page in our format.”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
