Comment on More Duplication of Journal Titles and Conference Names by Predatory Publishers by Conferences and Publocations | ppdabholkar
↧
↧
Comment on David Publishing Company, a Massive Spammer from China by Joe McVeigh
Got an email from David Publishing today and I’m just coming from a conference. They clearly scooped up my presentation title from the conference website.
For what it’s worth, they’re back in New York at the Nagel Ave address. At least, that’s the one that was in my email.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Riscaldamento magnetico globale? | OggiScienza
[…] IL PARCO DELLE BUFALE – Un articolo sull’entanglement telepatico dei biofotoni realizzato dal dott. Patrizio Tressoldi dell’Università di Padova potrebbe far pensare che i neuroscienziati rivoluzionino soltanto la fisica quantistica. Non è così e lo dimostra l’articolo di climatologia che il dott. David Vares e il prof. Michael Persinger (specializzato in parapsicologia, neuroteologia e co-inventore del “casco di Dio“) della Laurentian University di Sudbury, in Ontario, hanno pubblicato sull’International Journal of Geosciences, la rivista di un prestigioso editore predone. […]
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by J.J.
It’s not unique, but it’s strongly associated with author-pay OA because journals make money when they accept papers and none when readers access content, thus reducing the incentive to curate for quality.
↧
Comment on A Spammer and a Liar: Global Journals Inc. by tille
Thanks a lot! What about “Hindawi Publishing Corporation”?
↧
↧
Comment on BioMed Central Accepts and Quickly Publishes an Obvious Junk Paper by maximilianhaeussler
JJ, do you have data to support this statement? This is not what I see in practice. I see as much nonsense in OA as in non-OA journals. There is, however, one particular type of “scam” journal highlighted on Jeffrey’s blog here that seems to be mostly Open Access, but, as I mentioned above, no serious researcher would ever submit to these journals, they’re really just scams.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Vlad
Did any one find more info on vowscientificquest (VSQ) journals? It sound like this is another predatory publisher. What should one do if a manuscript has been submitted to a potentially predatory journal?
thank you for your help,
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Kisok
Dear Beall
What about this journal International Journal of Diabetes Research as they do not have publiser
↧
Comment on More Apparent Template-Plagiarism from BioMed Central by YC
I have a strong suspicion that articles like this are not written by the “authors”, but rather by ghost-writing services that have a series of templates where they just change names of proteins (siRNA, miRNA, SNPs, cancer patients …,…,…). Here is an example, tell me this is a complete coincidence
↧
↧
Comment on New Open-Access Publisher Offers Financial Incentives to Authors and Editors by Openness the tidal wave of Innovation | Believe you can and you’re halfway there. –Theodore Roosevelt
[…] Credit: Scholarly Open Access via […]
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Vishwa Jyoti Baruah
Sir, please also check if link given below is publishing bogus journals . “Bioinformation” is one such journal. It publishes paper in ‘one week!’ after receiving manuscript ,mostly as hypothesis. When link is clicked it takes you to PMC page which means they don’t even have a website but operates under pubmed central link. Please find further details on this journal.
http://www.biomedical-informatics.net/
http://www.bioinformation.net/
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Scientist Extends Multi-Million Dollar Challenge To Monsanto To Prove GMO Safety
[…] pointing out that the publisher of Agricultural Sciences, Scientific Research Publishing, has been criticized for predatory “pay to publish” practices. Additionally, Folta, who is a professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at […]
↧
Comment on Bogus Journal Accepts Profanity-Laced Anti-Spam Paper by Open IT OPEN IT!!! | BEGINNING OF A NEW ADVENTURE of Kai
[…] Another issue for OA is the possible damage to peer reviews systems, diminishing the overall quality of scientific journal publishing.[3] An example includes a hoax publication.[6] […]
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
I have the journal <em>Bioinformation</em> included on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. This means that the journal is questionable and should be avoided. The first link you sent isn't really a publisher, so it's out of scope for my work. It does point to one journal, but that journal is <em>Bioinformation</em>. Good luck.
↧
Comment on Appeals by ishmael
please explain why youve included Asian journal of science and technology to me they r following every rule youve mentioned, i can even send u email explaining my argument
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
What is your association with this low-quality journal?
↧
Comment on Bentham Open: Evidence of Article Brokers? by wkdawson
Well, if we consider that 1/6 of the world’s population is Chinese, then if everything else were equal (which it obviously isn’t), we should expect to see Chinese authors outnumbering most other ethnic communities by at least 2:1.
So merely seeing many Chinese authors in of itself is something we probably will have to get used to. This is the first culture shock of understanding Asia and cultures that developed long ago and largely independent of the west. Another culture shock is how Asians from such backgrounds view papers. The Western notion of scholarly work, where a person develops a deep understanding and periodically writes of further developments with the sole purpose of communicating valuable information, is not my impression of how things are largely understood in the East. Of course, there are good scholars everywhere who understand what papers are about, people who adopted some of the values of the West. However, a significant fraction of individuals appears to perceive papers as merely a kind of “advertisement” (for lack of a better word to find to express this concept). This is why you can end up reviewing papers that are very bad, and why the authors show so little compunction about how they have transgressed decency by ignoring vast swaths of the literature. This is why they just merely submit the same work to a different journal until it is “accepted”. It is not a forum for conveying useful information at all. It’s not about learning to communicate important information. Rather, it is more like a tool for drawing attention to yourself. Of course, a scholar also desires to be recognized, but through a reputation _as_ a scholar.
Combine this with central policy makers, bureaucrats and other bean counting institutions who inanely tend to count slips of paper and other questionable bibliometric factors that demonstrate that they know nothing about scholarly work, and soon you create a massive flood of “advertisements” from people who understand how the game is played, but, on top of that, are not even particularly aware of what this process is actually about (at least as a western educated individual sees it).
Think about it! We are all human beings, most of whom value their reputations. If journals were viewed as something that is in print forever, would most people actually publish their twaddle? Yet if it were just some cheap advertisement on a scrap of paper – soon to land in the waste can – and this is what central command cares about, there is no need to take this process of publication all that seriously. Just find a place to publish your drivel.
Of course, it is largely the West who has taught the East these senseless bibliometric measures and has not taking responsibility for the damage it has caused. So in this respect, the chickens have come home to roost, and we wonder why.
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
I haven’t analyzed the first one. I don’t have an established criteria for evaluating questionable conferences, nor do I maintain a list of them. The second one, however (International Journal of Arts and Sciences), is an exception. It is a series of vacations, er, conferences that operates under the title of a journal. I think it’s a counterfeit scholarly journal / scholarly conference and should be avoided.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
I don’t know. It does look fishy to me. It claims it’s organized by the Czech Institute of Academic Education, but I cannot find a website for this “Institute.” It may be fake. I recommend that you attend the conferences of known scholarly societies in your field. Don’t take a chance on unknown conferences held by likely fake Czech “institutes” in Vienna.
↧
Comment on I get complaints about Frontiers by Leonid Schneider
I present all my investigations in regard to Frontiers on my own blog here: https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com
Personally, I now tend to believe that Frontiers’ main weakness is their lax attitude to conflicts of interest (COI). The publisher started in 2007 with the owners’ own controversial papers on autism. In the current situation, it seems it pays off to have certain networks inside a given Frontiers journal to circumvent their own rules on quality control, editorial suitability and COI. It also helps to be an actual Frontiers editor, with the notorious Alfredo Fusco as prime example. Other problematic papers advocate parapsychology and other esoteric nonsense. Please visit my blog for details, your comments are most welcome
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
