Thanks for alerting me to this. It's a case of journal hijacking. I have added this case to my <a href="http://wp.me/P280Ch-z1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">list </a>of hijacked journals. Thank you again.
Comment on Other pages by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on Dead Metrics by bill
Another relevant post:
The ResearchGate Score: a good example of a bad metric
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/12/09/the-researchgate-score-a-good-example-of-a-bad-metric/
↧
Comment on Other pages by Karthi
How do you say that the impact factor provided is completely fake?
Given impact factor is true, That can be verified at the GIF webpage.
Follow the link: http://globalimpactfactor.com/international-journal-of-computer-networks-and-applications-ijcna/
With what view do you disagree that IJCNA publishes only quality articles.
Clarify my questions regarding impact factor as well as quality articles. ????
↧
Comment on Other pages by Jeffrey Beall
There's only a single product that calculates and publishes impact factors that's recognized internationally. It's called <em>Journal Citation Reports</em> (JCR), and its publisher is a company called Thomson Reuters. GIF is a fake version of JCR. GIF is unrecognized by virtually all honest researchers and universities.
Please see my list of fake impact factor companies <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. GIF is one of many counterfeit impact factor companies.
Dishonest researchers submit their manuscripts to bogus open-access journals that contract with GIF for fake impact factors. The papers are published in the GIF journals, and the researchers report to their universities that they have published papers in impact factor journals, but it's all a scam.
Honest researchers who do not take these unethical shortcuts are thereby victimized by the fake journals and impact factors.
↧
Comment on Dead Metrics by AN
@Bill,
I think Researchgate is among the most childish metric ever. I even do not see the usefulness of Researchgate itself, as a website. I asked them to remove my name many times but they did not do! I think they sell subscribers’ profiles to other companies and advertisers, this is why they do not wish to delete profiles because their business is based on. Simply shame.
↧
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by Mac
Can you throw some light on international journal of scientific and engineering research (www.ijser.org), plz?
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by Jeffrey Beall
Because this journal is a black hole, I cannot shine any light on it.
The journal is included on my list of questionable journals <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
↧
Comment on Dead Metrics by jacek@amu.edu.pl
I can response only this way, as I am blind and must use special software. I cannot agree more; indeed, the point made by the author of criticisms against certain indexes should be even strengthened; what we are dealing here is kind of quantophrenia , based on an aborted myth that quality can and ought to be brought down to quantity. The latter is most useful from a bureaucratic standpoint, to be sure, but the managers of science should not be conflated with science itself nd their evil ways should be condemned and discarded once for all. Is Marx two times better than Weber, or the other way round? Those are utterly absurd questions, and yet when their counterparts are being applied to you and me, we do not protest and take it for granted. prof [Ordinary, the highest academic rank in most European countries] Jacek Tittenbrun
↧
Comment on Dead Metrics by Emma Friesen (@elfriesen)
Many journals, letters, etc in the IEEE suite report IF, Eigenfactor and Article Influence Score on their individual websites. http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/periodicals/journals_magazines.html
One of the better journals in my field, Journal of Adolescent Health, reports an eigenfactor: http://www.jahonline.org/
Like Derek (above), I do not know if potential authors or readers are influenced by the eigenfactors.
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Christian Marolt
These savant guys are spammers of high extent. Sending out almost daily emails without providing the email they have sent it to and asking for unsubscription. I have done it with an email they did not have and – what surprise – at once this email address got spammed as well.
We seriously consider reporting them to Spamcop, etc.
↧
Comment on Dead Metrics by Dead Metrics | MEDCOMMSNEWS
[…] From Scholarly Open Access – [Read more] […]
↧
Comment on Dead Metrics by kpmitton
Reblogged this on <a href="https://kenmitton.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/dead-metrics/" rel="nofollow">Ken Mitton, PhD FARVO</a>.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Andy
Dear Prof Beall; Please can you help verify me this conference. I received an invitation in my box and I don’t where it is coming from.
http://nutrition-growth.kenes.com/
3rd International Conference on Nutrition & Growth, Vienna, Austria; March 17th -19th, 2016
Thanks
Andy
↧
↧
Comment on Two Publishers Both Publish Many of the Same Journals by Anthony A Deraco
Your article regarding our journals is a bit misleading and borders on defamation. It is noted on the SEP website that DEStech Publications formed a partnership with the 20 journals to increase visibility and look to obtain and increase an impact factor for each in due time. SEP provides part of the collection of papers and production and our goal is to improve on quality and importance for these open access journals. We are not fraudulent and I suggest you should have taken the time to contact us for accurate information instead of assumptions. We are a respected STM publisher and our mission is to provide relevant information in many sciences.
Anthony Deraco, President, DEStech Publications, Inc.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by syed robayet ferdous
Dear Bell
Let me know about the following publisher. My I publish my article by the publisher? Please help me.
Scientific Research
An Academic Publisher
http://www.scirp.org/Index.aspx
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
I recommend you NOT submit any papers to this publisher’s journals.
↧
Comment on Two Publishers Both Publish Many of the Same Journals by Jeffrey Beall
I doubt your journals will ever be considered for an impact factor. I think your decision to collaborate with this Chinese publisher that uses the address of a big house in Indiana as its headquarters was a strategic mistake. Moreover, I never said you were fraudulent, and it's unprofessional for you to put words in my mouth. Learn the difference between critical analysis and defamation.
Is DES<em>Tech</em> proud to publish a journal with the ungrammatical and unprofessional title of <em>International Journal of Advance in Medical Science</em>? Would you want your doctor to publish in this journal or base his or her practice on the articles in it? I would not trust anyone clueless enough to publish in such an obviously poorly-managed journal, one where they can't even get the title right.
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
It’s really difficult to evaluate conferences like this one. I don’t see a scholarly society associated with this one, so it may be a for-profit conference. I would recommend extreme caution with any decision involving this conference. Ask senior colleagues in the field if they’ve heard of it. One clue might be their strange headline, “Submit your breaking research.”
↧
Comment on Two Publishers Both Publish Many of the Same Journals by Vijay Raghavan
Jeffrey, Deraco agrees that your article is only ‘a bit’ misleading. Obviously, he admits that it leads correctly for the most part. Deraco’s response is the natural reaction of the president of this organization. You did not use the word ‘fraudulent’ but the fact that Draco has said it shows what is on his mind. Proof enough!
↧
Comment on Dead Metrics by Paula
I am curious about which ‘predatory’ journals are in SJR as I was under the impression that SCImago rankings are based on Scopus data. I know, from first hand experience, how thorough the Scopus vetting process is when you apply to have a journal included in Scopus. At our institution, researchers are advised to aim for Q1 and Q2 journals when choosing where to publish so I would hardly call it a dead metric. However, I would agree that using the SJR (or Impact Factor) to assess a specific article makes no sense.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
