<em>PLOS ONE</em> is not a predatory journal.
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
Yes, Openventio is included on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I recommend that you decline this invitation. I don't think this publisher is really based in the United States.
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by Angela Cochran
This could have happened in a non-OA journal just as easily.
↧
Comment on Questionable Subscription Publisher Acts Like a Predatory OA One by MR
Received same e-mail requesting service as reviewer next month from “Reni Koen, Senior Editor, Medical Research Archives” this morning and will ignore.
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by Jorge
Because closed access journals have negative incentives to publish an article (the money to do so comes from their pockets) while an open access journal has a positive incentive (they pocket for instance $2000) to publish an article, even if it is garbage like this one. I think it is pretty obvious.
↧
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by Eason
Obviously, the spandidos family can do it.
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by Eason
You may not know the definition of predatory journal.
How is your idea, Dr. Beall?
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by maximilianhaeussler
Jorge, do you work in science? I guess you do, so you know very well that a journal’s reputation is everything. A journal that publishes crap papers will not attract many submissions anymore. I’m sure BMC is horrified by their mistake, the negative publicity of this fraud paper on their customers is certainly way worse than what they gain through the open access fees.
Reputation is very important, for all journals, unless they’re so bad that they don’t care about anything, like the garbage journals from Jeffrey’s list, but no serious researcher would submit to these anyways. You would not submit to garbage journals, as you know the journals in your field. (I’m not saying the list is not useful, it’s good for people who don’t know a field, like librarians or people that evaluate references outside their field though I personally don’t think that’s a good idea).
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by JanosToth
If a retraction will be issued (I see no other reasonable outcome but I’m not a specialist), perhaps it would be a great move to reimburse the OA fee the author(s) have paid for publishing this article. For obvious reasons.
↧
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by Long time reader, first time poster
Really, so now we’re saying that seven weeks is an unacceptably short time for submission to acceptance? This is bordering on absurdity, to look poorly upon a journal for actually being efficient. If the reviewers gave it a pass/minor revisions (whether justified or not), then seven weeks is not ridiculous for acceptance. (Not full copy-edited publication, though you are right in suggesting that such a step seems to have been obviously missed.)
If the comments below on the scientific aspects (tekija, neuroskeptic) are accurate, then some failures in the peer review process have been identified, certainly — and that is not acceptable. If they are not fit to review it, they should have passed on it. But for reviewers to be expected to catch the duplication — I think that is a bit of a high bar. And a paper written in really poor English is, unfortunately, not uncommon. Though it perhaps could have been flagged as “needs serious English overhaul” and referred appropriately.
Now whether BMC should have been able to catch the duplication, that is a different issue… it depends on how good those automated checkers are at dealing with creative rewording. Perhaps these people did just enough to get past.
The immediate disdain for BMC is unsettling. They’re not the Cell Press of the open access world, but they have been in the game for a while and have a number of reasonably well-accepted journals. And I think that if subscription publishers were as good as you suggest, then Retraction Watch would be out of content pretty quickly.
↧
Comment on New Open-Access Oncology Journal Has Big Ambitions by Jesper
Hi Jeffrey,
First, great site – appreciate the work.
I have just read through this post and comments. I see you them on your list – have you confirmed that this is a predator journal? Seemed to be debatable above.
On the one hand, I can see they have listet a few more publications on their site, and these are now given “DOI” and indexed on google scholar, at least. I have also searched some of the authors listet for the papers on the site, and as far as I can see, they have several pubmed-indexed publications.
However I still don’t see them listet as a COPE member (although I can’t see they claim to be anymore), and the “managing editor”, Michael Wang, figuring in the email, is not listet on the site – and the editorial board still seems questionable.
Maybe best just to avoid it, I guess…
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by tekija
Yes of course, if it has the same Editor who passes papers like this to print. I have the feeling, however, that it far more difficult to become an Editor of a non-open-access journal, because gaffes like this are expected to lead to a decline in subscriptions and thus income, whereas in an open-access journal they just increase income. Now, who has not been invited to edit an open access journal, throw the first stone.
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by Bobo
The article appears to be plagiarized, so why would you refund the money?
Refunding the money for an article when it is discovered to be plagiarized removes the disincentive for submitting the plagiarized article in the first place.
Better that the fee be redirected to COPE or some other publishing ethics group rather than back to the authors.
↧
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by Spaghetti
A section editor of Diagnostic Pathology, Rodolfo Montironi, of the Section of Pathological Anatomy, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, School of Medicine, United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy, has a retraction to his name:
Original:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04000.x/abstract
Montironi, R., Scarpelli, M., Mazzucchelli, R., Cheng, L. and Lopez-Beltran, A. (2012), Retracted: The spectrum of morphology in non-neoplastic prostate including cancer mimics. Histopathology, 60: 41–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04000.x
Retraction:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/his.12418/abstract
The reason: plagiarism
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/his.12418/epdf
How were editors selected?
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by From Morocco
Yes, but in OA the probability is very high due to the corrupted business model (gold OA)!
The OA movement refuse to think about/deal with this type of corruption, simply they bury their heads in the sand (as Ostriches do!).
Still I prefer BioMed Central (a legitimate OA) but this bogus article really irked me!
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by L_C
There is another article of Aram Mokarizadeh’s (the corresponding author of the copycat paper) that reads odd:
Down-regulation of miR-133a and miR-539 are associated with unfavorable prognosis in patients suffering from osteosarcoma.
http://www.cancerci.com/content/pdf/s12935-015-0237-6.pdf
I’m not certain if this too is a copy and could not speak for the original source in such a case. However, the article seems rather like a patchwork paper. First, it appears to have a structure similar (albeit shorter) to the one found in a paper titled:
MiR-133a is downregulated in non-small cell lung cancer: a study of clinical significance.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/s40001-015-0139-z.pdf
The two papers share sections, although the wording has been morphed:
Original paper’s section:
“Correlations between the miR-133a expression and clinicopathological parameters in NSCLC”
Mokarizadeh’s section:
“Correlation of miRNAs expressions with the clinicopathological fetures”
The original article shares a corresponding author (Gang Chen) with the other paper from which Mokarizadeh potentially copied (the ‘Decreased’ paper above)
Then, some of the wording seems to be modified from a paper titled:
MicroRNA-133a, downregulated in osteosarcoma, suppresses proliferation and promotes apoptosis by targeting Bcl-xL and Mcl-1.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8756328213002160
For instance:
Original wording:
“Human important anti-apoptotic moleculars Bcl-xL and Mcl-1 are identified to be new direct targets of miR-133a in osteosarcoma,
suggesting that miR-133a may exert its pro-apoptotic function via inhibiting Bcl-xL and Mcl-1 expression”
Mokarizadeh’s copy:
“Human important anti-apoptotic molecules Bcl-xL and Mcl-1 are determined to be new direct targets of miR-133a in osteosarcoma indicating that miR-133a may exert its pro-apoptotic function throughout inhibiting Bcl-xL and Mcl-1 expression”
Next, the image sources of the paper are also questionable, although a few of the chart structures and images are similar to ones I have seen in an article titled:
miR-185 and miR-133b deregulation is associated with overall survival and metastasis in colorectal cancer
(which is found a journal by the aforementioned Spandidos Publication should you desire to locate it)
Finally, as far as positives go, Mokarizadeh noted that no one potentially misallocated funding for this peculiar paper:
“Acknowledgements:
This work had no fund.”
↧
Comment on Subscription Publisher Awkwardly Experiments with Open-Access by Marcus Souza
Dear Dr Beall,
After all, is it safe to publish book chapters or whole books at IGI Global?
Thanks!
↧
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by J.J.
Maximillian, do you work in science? I guess you do, so you know that the vast majority of author-pay open access journals don’t give a flying futz about their reputation, the content of the article they publish, or science itself.
They are only taping into the large sums of un-monitored taxpayer money that researcher-wannabes use to quickly add lines on their CV.
At the end the scientific community loses on every front, junk science floods the internet, research funding is thrown out of the window, and on the longer haul, there will be more trust issues from the general public.
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)
Retracted due to “overlap without attribution of work previously published by” a different set of authors. Oh dear.
↧
Comment on Two New Pay-to-Publish Startups: SciRes Literature and Gavin Publishers by Keith Fraser
“Profound source of knowledge” – LOL. You’d think that people trying to make money by looking like a real scientific journal would put some level of effort into not looking like a crank echo chamber, paper mill or vanity press.
In related news, I found someone spamming links to a “press release” on a couple of LinkedIn groups. Close examination revealed the announcing institution (that’s supposedly discovered a miracle cure for all disabilities including “Down Syndrome, mental retardation, inability to learn, dyslexia, dystrophy, slow development, poor growth, hormonal imbalance, Autism, ADHD, genetic problems and many others”) to be almost certainly non-existent. Its website is an information-lite shambles with no list of staff or publications, an address that shows no signs of any institution of the sort, sections inexplicably written in Latin, and a picture of their building (supposedly in Kerala, India) that turns out to in fact be of a newspaper office in Manchester, England.
https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/56601-6062148054964789248?trk=groups-post-b-title
https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/2938223-6062145680623816708?trk=groups-post-b-all-cmnts
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
