Thank you for the information. What about the International Business Research, Economics, Finance and MIS Conference (BREFM) which publishes, among others, the Global Journal of Finance and Management (GJFM)? Is this predatory? Thanks.
Comment on Appeals by Rufo Mendoza
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
The conference is organized by the Taiwan-based Higher Education Forum, a highly questionable conference organizer that I wrote about <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/03/12/higher-education-forum-95-vacation-5-scholarly-conference/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. This conference organizer doesn't publish its own journals. Typically they have deals with low quality and predatory publishers and funnel the conference papers to the journal.
In this case, the <em>Global Journal of Finance and Management</em> (GJFM) is published by Research India Publications, which I've written about <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/03/18/greedy-indian-publisher/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and is a horrible publisher, not a good place to publish one's work at all.
↧
Comment on Appeals by Rufo Mendoza
Thank you very much.
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by amira
What about. Scientific journal impact factor SJIF?
↧
Comment on Misleading Metrics by Jeffrey Beall
The link was dead. I’ve fixed it now. Thanks.
↧
↧
Comment on Is this 17 Year-Old Korean Ph.D. Student a Plagiarist? by student2
If a student only just “copy and paste almost all of material from previously published article,” (as you mentioned) even if he/she cites it, the report WILL get an F.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
Because the Common Ground journals are not published using the open-access model, I have not formally analyzed them. I do receive many questions about them, meaning people all over the world find them questionable.
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
Actually, this journal is included on my standalone journal list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Thank you.
↧
Comment on JMIR Publications: A Model for Open-Access Health Sciences Publishers? by Jeffrey Beall
<a href="https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/jmir-dead-editorial-boards.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Here is evidence</a> that at least four of JMIR Publications' journals lack editorial boards, in apparent violation of both OASPA and COPE principles. This publisher arrogantly grants itself exemptions from the rules
↧
↧
Comment on JMIR Publications: A Model for Open-Access Health Sciences Publishers? by gunthereysenbach
“For a leader in publishing, you need to have a track record of at least longer than 5 years” – Thanks very much – JMIR has actually a 17 year track record, with the first issue published in 1999 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=jmir and http://www.jmir.org/issue/year/1999). We were the first open access journal in the medical informatics category, and ranked #1 by impact factor for 5 consecutive years, hence the byline “The leading eHealth journal”, which was amended to the “leading eHealth publisher” as we created sister journals. We are also leading by other metrics which I am happy to share on request. And as an side, we brand ourselves as the “leading EHEALTH publisher”, not the “leader in publishing”.
No responses here are “organized”. JB is insulting the intelligence of 20.000 authors and peer-reviewers – PhDs and professors in the field – who have over the past 17 years decided to publish in, edit for, or peer-review for JMIR journals, so some level of pushback and setting the record straight is to be expected. It is the word of a librarian who is not a subject expert against 20,000 subject experts.
↧
Comment on JMIR Publications: A Model for Open-Access Health Sciences Publishers? by gunthereysenbach
JMIR is a (founding!) member of OASPA and a member of COPE and we are very well aware of these principles. Please read again what these “evidence” screenshots as well as their principles say. This is not a violation of OASPA and COPE principles, as nothing in these principles says that “no two journals can have the same EB members”. These 4 journals are “sister” journals and during a transitional period, where they are “incubated”, submissions are edited by JMIR EB members. The names of each academic editor as well as the peer-reviewers are transparently published at the end of each published article.
OASPA and COPE have complaint mechanisms against its members (and we are a member of both), so if you think we are in violation, the proper pathway would be to first discuss your concerns with us, and if your concerns remain, file an official complaint with these organizations, which they will investigate with due process.
↧
Comment on JMIR Publications: A Model for Open-Access Health Sciences Publishers? by Jeffrey Beall
What a silly and fallacious response, very unbecoming of a medical publisher. Your attempt to play me off your "20,000 subject experts" is an act of desperation. It's clear that JMIR Publications has a lot of problems and has been caught with its pants down.
<img src="https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/jmir-nonsense.jpg?w=450" alt="JMIR nonsense" /> JMIR is NOT the "leading peer-reviewed journal for health and healthcare in the Internet age". This is hyperbolic marketing, and it has no place in science.
↧
Comment on Appeals by Dr. Vinod
Thanks Jeffrey. I must have overlooked the list. Lately I browsed the master list of TRs and surprised to see some predatory journals in your list are recently added. How come TR people added such journals while they are in the predatory list. Cheers.
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
Thanks, the TR master list includes ever journal in every single one of Thomson Reuters various products, and they have dozens of products. It product called Zoological Record indexes pretty much every journal that ever has articles that cover zoology in a broad sense, even if they are predatory. So, just because of this single TR product, there are dozens if not hundreds of predatory journals included in the TR master list. I think this list should not be used as a whitelist.
↧
Comment on JMIR Publications: A Model for Open-Access Health Sciences Publishers? by gunthereysenbach
It is certainly a valid debate to discuss what makes a journal or publisher “leading” (e.g. leading a discipline by impact factor, showing leadership and commitment to quality and integrity in open access by participating and co-founding organizations such as OASPA, being the first open access journal in a discipline, etc), but such dialogue must also consider quality of content and include subject experts. We stand by our tagline and branding as the “the leading eHealth publisher”, for the reasons mentioned above.
To summarize the “problems” you, Mr Beall, “caught” us with: 1) you do not like our web design and our branding as “leading ehealth publisher” (duly noted). 2) you “discovered” that 4 out of 14 newer JMIR sister journals don’t have their own editorial boards (yet), rather they use JMIR editors (something we transparently disclose on our website and pointed out is transitional), 3) you do not like the fact that JMIR Publications is charging an (optional) fast-track fee, and introduces article processing fees as newer journals become indexed (again, all transparently disclosed on our website, and not specific to JMIR Publications), 4) you do not like the fact that we are “re-organizing and expanding”.
We thank you for your feedback and reiterate our commitment to innovation in scholarly publishing and to our mission statement, which is “To help innovators in the health technology space to collaborate and to disseminate their innovations, ideas, and research results to the widest possible audience, in a timely manner, adding value to the quality of their work and adhering to the highest ethical and quality standards”.
As JMIR enters it’s 18th year, we will continue to review and continuously iterate our web design, branding and processes and will post any updates related to this post at http://www.jmir.org/content/beall, including any potential changes we are making. A link to our feedback form for constructive feedback regarding our ongoing website re-design is at http://www.jmir.org/announcement/view/83. We will continue to engage with organizations such as OASPA, COPE, DOAJ and STM (all of which we are a members in) and amend our processes as deemed necessary by them and our peers. Thanks & merry xmas..
↧
Comment on Other pages by Jeffrey Beall
The publisher MDPI is not on my list at this time.
↧
Comment on JMIR Publications: A Model for Open-Access Health Sciences Publishers? by Jeffrey Beall
Your marketing is dishonest. JMIR is NOT the “leading peer-reviewed journal for health and healthcare in the Internet age”. You market your journals like they are laundry detergent. This is a shameful practice for a medical publisher.
Authors beware.
↧
↧
Comment on Science Publishing Group Publishes Junk Science by Paul
Dear Mr. Beall,
Good morning. I am trying to find out if the “Journal of Education and e-Learning Research” (JEELR) located at http://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/JEELR is a worthwhile journal to publish an article in.
I value your opinion and experience so please let me know.
Thank you.
Paul
↧
Comment on Science Publishing Group Publishes Junk Science by Jeffrey Beall
I have this journal's publisher — Asian Online Journal Publishing Group — included on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I recommend finding a stronger from a better publisher. This publisher launched a fleet of broad scope journals all at once and doesn't appear to have sufficient experience in scholarly publishing to manage itself well.
↧
Comment on JMIR Publications: A Model for Open-Access Health Sciences Publishers? by Weekend reads: NFL, NIH butt heads on concussion research; should all papers be anonymous? - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch
[…] Beall has questions about JMIR Publications, and publisher Gunther Eysenbach has […]
↧
