Dear Jeffrey
Thanks for opening my eyes, on the issue. However I would like to ask you that I have submitted my paper to the journal Climate Services. is it not among them?
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Sewa
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
If you mean the journal with that title found <a href="http://www.journals.elsevier.com/climate-services/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>, then it is not.
↧
Comment on David Publishing: Flipping Its Model by Michel
add International Relations and Diplomacy (ISSN2328-2134, doi: 10.17265/2328-2134/) I got an email from them today.
↧
Comment on Two Publishers Both Publish Many of the Same Journals by Tole
hello mr.Beall
i found interesting open access journal : http://www.medipharmsai.com/
are they predaory journal?
is safe to submit article to that publihser?
↧
Comment on Two Publishers Both Publish Many of the Same Journals by Jeffrey Beall
In my opinion, it’s not a good idea to submit an article to this journal. I think it’s a very low-quality journal. I recommend you avoid this one and find a stronger, respected journal.
↧
↧
Comment on MIT Journal Hijacked by Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen
With any luck people will notice that the hijacked version can’t spell “Journal.” See “About Jornal” at top left of home page, and the mistake is repeated right up top under “TECH REV.”) Should be a hint. Twice, as Oscar Wilde said, begins to look like carelessness.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Katherine
Dear Jeffrey, thanks for your contribution and for alerting us about predatory publishers. Would you please comment some more about http://iated.org/inted/call_for_papers They run conferences and publish presenters’ articles in their digital library. Their website say previous versions have been “INTED 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 already accepted and indexed in ISI Conference Proceedings Citation Index.” and are Indexed in the Web of science. I have attended two of their conferences as a presenter and in both cases I was published and the conference had everything they said. I’d really appreciate your comments on this. Regards, Katherine
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
You may be in a better position to judge the conference than I, given that you’ve actually attended them. It’s harder to evaluate a conference from its website than it is a journal or publisher.
This one looks borderline to me. It apparently uses Google Scholar to translate its website text and says, “The International Academy of Technology, Education and Development (IATED) is an organism dedicated to the promotion of international education and university cooperation in the field of Technology and Science.” An organism?
I don’t see that they give a clear address of where they are located. They charge presenters but don’t make their papers open-access; instead they sell the conference proceedings too. It appears to be a venal organism .. er, I mean organization.
They sure use the WoS logo a lot, much more than strong conferences do.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Tesfaye Tebake
Hi Jeffrey Beall, i appreciate your effort. can you give me information about this journal: JOURNAL OF ADVANCED
BOTANY AND ZOOLOGY
↧
↧
Comment on Open-Access Articles for Sale as Expensive Books on Amazon by Artículos de Acceso Abierto reunidos en libros y vendidos a altos precios en Amazon | universoabierto.com
[…] Según Open Acces Scholary, un editor llamado Applied Research Press está usando la plataforma Amazon.co.uk y Amazon.com para vender artículos de investigación de revistas de acceso abierto para crear monografías que vende a precios altos en Amazon. Aparentemente las licencias Creative Commons permiten esta posibilidad comercial, si bien alguna práctica de esta empresa como el hecho de retitular los capítulos o atribuirse autorias sin añadir valor añadido podría vulnerar los derechos de autor. […]
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
The <em>Journal of Advanced Botany and Zoology</em> is published by ScienceQ Publishing Group. I have this publisher included on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here </a>and recommend that you not submit any papers to it, even if the publishing is free.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Ob1
One should quickly realize this is garbage. Look at their webpage ! It looks like something from my daughters coloring book.
And, why do so many people ask about obscure journals? Publish your papers in journals from known, well established journals i.e., those journals in Wiley, Springer, Elsevier, etc etc etc etc. OR just look where your field of study is publishing papers- Damn its not hard. Some journals are free – although they might not be open access, they are still free and have a solid peer review- that is the goal!
It amazes me that so many scientists with higher education (MS PhD) cannot determine on their own whether a journal is worthy or not. GET A GRIP people do not rely on JB – learn some decision making skills.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Eloise Marais
Consider adding “Nature and Science”: http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
Its publisher, Marsland Press, is already included on the list of questionable publishers.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Sylvain B.
This journal is however quite helpful for researchers: just publish one article here (content is unimportant; If tight on time, plagiarize an obscure PhD thesis, invent data, or use SCIgen). If the head lab is reluctant to endorse you tenure, you will have a very strong argument:
“Boss, this year I published in Nature and Science”.
Don’t worry, your boss, jealous for such a success, will never ask for reprints.
↧
Comment on Instead of a Peer Review, Reviewer Sends Warning to Authors by Jeffrey Beall
<a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Yes</a>.
There's no space between <em>Science </em>and <em>Domain</em>.
↧
Comment on Instead of a Peer Review, Reviewer Sends Warning to Authors by John R. Adler, Jr., M.D.
Come on…..are you guys truly surprised by this? You appear to have this perspective that the peer review process is somehow sacrosanct, which in my considerable experience (200+ articles) is far removed from the reality of journalistic review.
This type of interaction between reviewers, editors and authors is commonplace in peer reviewed publications throughout dozens of peer reviewed journals that I have published in…..and none of these journals are on your list of “predatory journals”. Any “EXPERIENCED” author will tell you that the peer review process is by nature highly subjective and because of that various political agendas get worked out. I liken the peer review process to the game of water polo where the real game happens under the surface of the water. In the present case the reviewer merely gave us insight into a single example of unseemly behavior. MDPI may be “predatory” but you need to provide more compelling evidence than this, because by this definition, the entire industry is predatory—which may in fact be true! :-)
This is why I contend that a post publication community based (crowdsourced) scoring process, i.e. Cureus’ SIQ, is a far more legitimate measure of scientific quality than any pre-publication review my a couple of experts.
↧
↧
Comment on Instead of a Peer Review, Reviewer Sends Warning to Authors by Robert Cameron
At least this gives us an example of individual integrity! While i agree with Adler that abuse of the peer review system is (a) not confined to OA journals and (b) is not merely a recent phenomenon, I do not think that open post-publication review is the answer. It will increase the flood of stuff to be read while decreasing its average quality. As a reviewer and associate editor for many years, one of the most rewarding aspects of the process has been dealing with inexperienced authors whose first language is often not English, so that the revised version they publish after this private criticism is a real credit to them and to the journals they publish in. The naive first draft is not exposed to public comment.
But I do admit that as a referee in the distant past I have been disturbed to see papers appearing in rather high-ranking journals without modification after I had raised serious questions about the accuracy of the data, or where I suspected plagiarism or at least a rip-off of other’s unpublished work. However, these were very rare cases among the many hundreds of reviews that I have done.
One good practice I note among some high ranking journals is that the editors send all reviewers copies of other reviewer’s comments (of course, anonymised). Knowing that this will happen is a kind of safeguard against grossly inappropriate reviews.
↧
Comment on Instead of a Peer Review, Reviewer Sends Warning to Authors by Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)
The journal asked the reviewer for an expert opinion – and they got it. Oh dear.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by fsuzun
Dear Beall,
What do you think about “Educational Research and Reviews”? I haven’t seen any problem on this journal but it is in your list.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
