So far as I can determine from these posts, the problems with having VDM publish a dissertation or thesis mostly kick in if you want to be a lecturer, or if you have any plans to try to publish the work through other means. I don’t really see a problem if you don’t intend to use your work in a career context and will have absolutely no plans to have it published by a more respected publishing house. If you do want it published by a respected academic publisher, remember that it’s by no means plain sailing. I had to submit my manuscript to over 15 different publishers before one accepted it. So the idea that one can go off and easily get the work published elsewhere is usually wrong headed. Self-publishing, another option, is quite expensive since you have to pay for it to be done, whereas VDM does the whole thing for free. Those seem to be the main issues.
Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by ukthesis
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals by Roy
I went through the criteria for the inclusion of journals in your list, and I wonder why some are on the list. Kindly state with precision, why International Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Research is on the list.
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
1. There is the regular occurrence of plagiarism among the articles. For example, one of the journal’s articles contains this passage, without any attribution:
“Variability in CD4+ LCs among healthy HIV seronegative adults has been widely reported and has been attributed to biological, ethnic group influences as well as differences in the methodologies used for T-cell enumeration.”
That passage originally appeared here:
http://intl-cvi.asm.org/content/11/5/930.full
2. Much of the authors’ guidelines is copied from other sites.
3. The journal has a very broad coverage to attract more author fees, and there are already many journals with a similar coverage — there is no authentic need for this new journal. It’s just being done for the profit.
4. The journal claims to be indexed is services that are not abstracting and indexing services.
5. There no indication of the journal’s digital preservation policies.
6.. There is no indication of the journal’s policies regarding retraction.
etc.
↧
Comment on New Publisher Fakes Association with Reed Elsevier by GJ Woeginger
I have identified the true original version of one of the fake papers in the journal “Advanced Crop Science”:
The article “RESPONSE OF MAIZE TO LIMING AND AMELIORATIVE PHOSPHORUS FERTILIZATION”
by I. Komljenović, M. Marković, Danijela Kondić, V. Kovačević,
in Advanced Crop Science, Volume 3, Number 3, pp 225-232
has been copied from the Croation open access journal “Poljoprivreda / Agriculture”, from volume 16(2):9-13, December 2010.
Here is the link to the original article:
http://www.pfos.hr/~poljo/?q=vol-16-2-2
↧
Comment on New Publisher Fakes Association with Reed Elsevier by Jeffrey Beall
Nice detective work!
↧
↧
Comment on About the Author by Plagiarism: It’s not just about you. | Chronicles of a HNFE PhD Student
[...] back to Dr. Neil…this plagiarism charge was brought to light by Jeffrey Beall who runs a blog showcasing and calling out those who perform academic dishonesty through what he [...]
↧
Comment on Combining Fake Journals with Fake Conferences: Global Business & International Management Conference by MildaK
I attented one of the previous conferences of this company, so i can speak from experience. Pros: Some papers were really good, and “attending” the conference was easy and confortable. Cons: Lots of mediocre and crappy papers, no sign of quality control concerning content and English. My paper received two one-paragraph reviews (one of them written in barely understandable English), accepting my work without actually reflecting to any of my major points. This event was barely anything for a scientific conference. I may choose not to omit it from my CV (or should I?), but i will never attend another conference organized by this for-profit company.
↧
Comment on Combining Fake Journals with Fake Conferences: Global Business & International Management Conference by MildaK
(my reply applies to the Thomson-GV-conference-thing, not to the one in the main post).
↧
Comment on Does Scholarly Open-Access Publishing Increase Author Misconduct? by dzetland
That’s strange. How do they stay in business? Unless they are really just “blogs” where anyone can “publish” anything without any editorial/editing/layout.
OTOH, I think that submission fees will reduce duplicate publication, since it’s more expensive to say the same thing twice.
Finally, I wonder why authors self-duplicate. Are tenure and advancement committees so lazy that they do not even look at the papers submitted for promotion? There’s an iceberg of issues here…
↧
↧
Comment on Does Scholarly Open-Access Publishing Increase Author Misconduct? by Nils
@dzetland:
There do exist serious OA journals. They use a serious peer review procedure, and as opposed to predatory OA publishers, they often operate on a non-profit basis. They can survive because they are supported by institutions such as e.g. the IMS, see http://imstat.org/en/index.html
As for hiring or tenure committees, my experience is that duplicate publication is noted and does make a very negative impression. But I don’t know how representative these experiences are.
↧
Comment on Article Acceptance Letter Reveals a Bogus Peer Review by Rob Rittenhouse
The fee is mentioned under the journal home page. Won’t say I’m real impressed by the operation but it is worth noting they’ve apparently been in business since 2006.
↧
Comment on One of the World’s Most Prolific Scholars: Syed Tauseef Mohyud-Din by Asif
I totally agree with Hamid, I wish the people who criticize can witness his knowledge his knowledge in the class. Communication skills with full command over the subject and quoting the most latest work, pleasing attitude, extraordinary humble are the few of the positive features of his teaching
↧
Comment on Does Scholarly Open-Access Publishing Increase Author Misconduct? by Rafael Hernandez
It strikes me to see that “salami slicing “is misconduct, perhaps you are refering to remix (mixing several publications to obtain more publisable units). I understand “salami slicing” as just dividing the reserach into publishable units, what’s wrong with this? Thanks.
↧
↧
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by TUHH Universitätsbibliothek: Zur Zukunft des Publizierens
[...] zur manchmal problematischen Qualität von Open-Access-Verlagen [...]
↧
Comment on Article Acceptance Letter Reveals a Bogus Peer Review by Alex H
Umm actually this is NOT gold OA-Publishing. In gold OA, we (or our institution) pay for our article to be made open so that access can be free of charge for everyone, and not for the unconditional acceptance of our papers or for skipping the peer review.
I advise to the person in question to ask for the peer reviews. It will be obvious from the text if they have been written by qualified and competent peers or not.
↧
Comment on Article Acceptance Letter Reveals a Bogus Peer Review by Jeffrey Beall
I think the person decided to withdraw his submission when he realized the questionable nature of the operation.
I’ve never seen a definition of gold OA that mentions anything about the quality (or authenticity) of the peer review.
↧
Comment on Does Scholarly Open-Access Publishing Increase Author Misconduct? by Jeffrey Beall
“In academia, salami slicing refers to the practice of creating several short publications out of material that could have, perhaps more validly, been published as a single article in a journal or review. (See also least publishable unit).”
↧
↧
Comment on Article Acceptance Letter Reveals a Bogus Peer Review by Alex H
in Peter Suber’s Open Access Overview, para. “OA journals (“gold OA”)”., the first thing that the author states is that “OA journals conduct peer review”.
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
Let’s say that a publishing platform let the author think that they sent out the submitted material to peers and the acceptance is based on their expert recommendations. It still does not change the fact that they did not conducted peer review. They can write acceptance emails, give certificates, put a statement in their website that “all published materials undergone double blind peer-review” etc., still does not matter. There are some exceptions, but usually the only proof for a peer review is the actual text of the peer review.
A peer review also presuppose peers. As i m not an expert in quantum geometry, i can not write a peer review for a qg ms. Even if i write a review for a manuscript dealing with that topic, it is still not the review of a peer. The same applies for the editor of any obscure journal who manage to find someone (anyone) to write a few praising words for Author X: Hu can’t say either that the manuscript was peer-reviewed. IMHO.
Some other iteresting quotes from Mr. Suber.
“There are two primary vehicles for delivering OA to research articles, OA journals (“gold OA”) and OA repositories (“green OA”). The chief difference between them is that OA journals conduct peer review and OA repositories do not.(…) Most activists refer to OA delivered by journals as gold OA (regardless of the journal’s business model), and to OA delivered by repositories as green OA. ”
“”A common misunderstanding is that all OA journals use an “author pays” business model. There are two mistakes here. The first is to assume that there is only one business model for OA journals, when there are many. The second is to assume that charging an upfront fee is an “author pays” model. In fact, most OA journals (70%) charge no author-side fees at all. Moreover, most conventional or non-OA journals (75%) do charge author-side fees. When OA journals do charge fees, the fees are usually (88%) paid by author-sponsors (employers or funders) or waived, not paid by authors out of pocket.”
I do not think that the quality of the peer review have any relevance in deciding the question whether a publishing platform is a “gold OA journal” or not.
↧
Comment on Article Acceptance Letter Reveals a Bogus Peer Review by Alex H
(*) as long as it is the review written by a peer.
↧
Comment on Does Scholarly Open-Access Publishing Increase Author Misconduct? by Open Access Increases Author Misconduct? It is NOT so Simple! | Open Science
[...] on Scholarly Open Access dr Jeffrey Beall published a post on authors’ misconduct in OA stating that in his view “open-access publishing enables, [...]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
