You are saying publishers never make a mistake. I’ve refused to assign © to publishers for more than 15 years, just granting them a licence to reproduce, yet many of my articles incorrectly carry a publisher’s copyright notice. I’m not saying the items you refer to have incorrect publishers’ statements. I am saying you should be sceptical of publisher statements and should double check with authors before making the type of claims you do. I ask again – did you check with the authors?
Comment on Predatory Publishers Love Academia.edu by coppenheim
↧
↧
Comment on University of Pristina Rector under Fire for Publishing in Predatory Journals by paul okolie
So please list for us those good ones where we can publish.
↧
Comment on Predatory Publishers Love Academia.edu by Jeffrey Beall
It’s regrettable that you have chosen to publish your work with publishers that don’t respect your copyright. May I refer you to my published lists? They will help you avoid such publishers.
Advising people to be skeptical of copyright statements is bad advice, especially when the alternative offered is to just ask the author. Both of the publishers involved, Springer and Taylor & Francis, use the CC BY license when the authors have elected to make their works open-access.
↧
Comment on Predatory Publishers Love Academia.edu by coppenheim
The publishers in question that ignored my licence with them are only big mainstream ones. Thank you for your advice not to use them in future.
↧
Comment on Predatory Publishers Love Academia.edu by Henk Braig
The second pdf already disappeared.
Cheers,
Henk
↧
↧
Comment on Is this 17 Year-Old Korean Ph.D. Student a Plagiarist? by benji
I just learned that the paper was retracted and roundly denounced,
which was the right and obvious outcome.
The only way I would have found the paper acceptable on any level
is if the order of authors was reversed, in which case I would still find it a self plagiarism by Park and a questionable, desperate, and unjustified attempt to get his pupil published.
If this paper is the result of such an desperate attempt, than I doubt the duo is academically capable of anything much at all.
↧
Comment on Is this 17 Year-Old Korean Ph.D. Student a Plagiarist? by Jeffrey Beall
Thanks. The retraction notice is <a href="http://aas.org/posts/news/2015/11/astrophysical-journal-paper-retracted-plagiarism" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Narm
hello Jeffrey Beall,
would you tell me please about this publisher whether it is predator or not?
“International Journal of Technology Enhancements and Emerging Engineering Research (ISSN 2347 – 4289)”
thank you in Advance!
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Girum
Could you kindly advise whether the International Journal of Technology Enhancements and Emerging Engineering Research (ISSN 2347-4289) are predatory?
THANKS!
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Andreas
I have recently be contacted by “Atlas of Science, A another view on Science” to prepare a layman’s summary of one of my articles.
(http://atlasofscience.org/ and not the MIT book series). It is a bit strange that there is not a single contact person, address, institution, or anything else mentioned on their entire webpage.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
I had not heard of this journal before. I have analyzed it and added it to my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Thank you for alerting me to it. The journal has many weaknesses, including the prominent display of a fake impact factor.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
Strange indeed. This is a new attempt at establishing yet another way to get money from researchers. It’s not illegal, but I think it’s largely unnecessary, and any money spent here will not be money well spent.
↧
Comment on “No Author Fee” Open-Access Journal Bills Author for His Accepted Paper by Marcos Pedlowski
Reblogged this on <a href="http://blogdopedlowski.com/2015/11/26/no-author-fee-open-access-journal-bills-author-for-his-accepted-paper/" rel="nofollow">Blog do Pedlowski</a> and commented:
No mundo do "trash science" as coisas nunca são o que o editor predatório anuncia. Esse é o caso abordada nesta postagem do Prof. Jeffrey Beall.
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Tesfaye Tebake
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RECENT RESEARCH IN SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IJRRSET) send me an email message to publish on their journal. But i have no information either it is predatory or not. could you give me any information about the journal ?
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
I think it's predatory. It advertises a fake impact factor and does a three-day peer review. I recommend that you avoid this fake journal. I've added it to my <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">list</a>. Best wishes.
↧
Comment on Is this 17 Year-Old Korean Ph.D. Student a Plagiarist? by arendellean
An important issue is being overlooked, largely because the paper was quickly retracted. I strongly believe that the paper is so low-quality that it shouldn’t have been accepted in the first place (plagiarized or not). This incidence seems to reflect the poor review practice of The Astrophysical Journal (ApJ).
First, for some background on the ApJ, their acceptance rate is 85–90%, and for most cases, just a single referee is involved; ApJ seeks a second opinion only in the case of a stalemate. (See https://aas.org/files/resources/aasjan2014_burton.pdf) They say that their review process is supposed to be constructive.
Now, regarding the retracted paper, let’s see what resulted from this so-called “constructive” review process. In Section 4, the authors derive PDEs whose independent variables are spacetime coordinates. What is interesting is that one can find $\dot{\varpi}$ and $\dot{\varphi}$ (\dot denotes a partial derivative w.r.t. the coordinate time) in multiple places, including Eq. 4.24 which Park claims to be an important discovery. But both $\dot{\varpi}$ and $\dot{\varphi}$ are trivially equal to zero because each of them is a partial derivative of an independent variable with respect to another. Therefore, a lot of terms in Eqs. 4.15—4.20, 4.24, 4.27—4.29, and 4.31 are nothing but convoluted ways to express the number zero. I believe that a reasonably capable undergraduate student in a physical science should be able to detect such an apparent error and that the reviewer definitely didn’t read the paper.
I know that it is impractical to demand the peer-review process be perfect. But this incidence clearly shows how vulnerable a single-reviewer process is against an irresponsible referee simply signing off the paper.
↧
Comment on Is this 17 Year-Old Korean Ph.D. Student a Plagiarist? by herr doktor bimler
I note from the retraction notice that Editor Vishniac recused himself from the process of revisiting the paper (on account of his previous collaborations with co-author Park). Did he recuse himself from the initial peer-review and acceptance?
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
I invite you to read these two blog posts I've written that discuss some of this publisher's weaknesses, <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/10/16/two-agriculture-journals-share-the-same-title" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">one</a>, <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/07/17/peer-review-reports-from-questionable-publishers-three-examples/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">two</a>. The second one describes CCSE's lax or fake peer review, in which they use a template and basically give the <a href="https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/result-of-review_redacted.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">same peer review report</a> to all articles submitted and accepted. The publisher is basically a one-man operation, and it successfully fills a niche by offering quick + easy + cheap scholarly publishing.
Questionable publishers and journals often use the names of qualified experts such as yourself to make their operations look legitimate. I think they often publish papers even when the expert reviewers recommend rejection. So, you may spend time evaluating a submission, recommend rejection, and then see the paper quickly published anyway, and you've completely wasted your time.
↧
Comment on David Publishing Company, a Massive Spammer from China by pao
I found an e-mail from this company (Journal of Health Science) in my inbox a few days ago… The whole thing is highly suspicious.
↧
Comment on Predatory Publisher Organizes Conference Using Same Name as Legitimate Conference by Prashant Dabholkar (India, Australia) (08-11-2015) — Predatory publisher WASET illegally uses name of IEEE conferences | WASET = Turkish Fraudsters Cemal Ebru Bora Ardil
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
