Dear Jeffrey,
Modern Economy is listed in the EconLit list of journals: https://www.aeaweb.org/econlit/doctypes.php
Many economics depts. use EconLit as an acceptable list of journals for promotion and tenure. The AEA lists Modern Economy as peer-reviewed. I’m confused. How does one check whether the journal is legitimate, especially if the journal is on our “acceptable” list?
Thank you!
Dr. Econ
The Agrawal, A. A. (2014) paper is already out of date – it was actually a one page letter and I am sure it got the author a few citations. You can read it here .http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/documents/agrawal2014tipsskepticalofopen-access.pdf . The accusation there that OA has “…little quality control, conflicts of interest, and no stamp of rigor or potential impact” clearly applies only to the journals on JBs list, but nor the others. The point with OA is to look for the sound and trustworthy journals which are as good as (in some cases better than, like ‘Cultural Anthropology’ or ‘Environmental Health Perspectives’) their traditional counterparts. Most of these are free and listed in, at least, Scopus and some in WoS as well. Many, like my own, are produced by dedicated and unpaid academics trying to break the back of the ‘big five’ publishers without charging authors instead of readers. My own list in a few academic fields, mainly in social science, is getting a fair bit of traffic since like Jeffrey, I check every journal. No bad ones on there. https://simonbatterbury.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/list-of-open-access-journals
Do they ever publish your article? If not, can it be submitted to a different journal of a reputable publisher?
Will you be able to submit your article to a different journal? I am in the same boat as you, and am wondering if all of my research has been wasted.
Thank you very much
Dear Jeffrey, your listing has alerted many young and inexperienced research from the predatory journals. Recently I have come across an ‘institute’ that seems to me a predatory. Please check this http://www.iaesjournal.com/. Thanks.
Since when do kindergarten-aged boys get PhDs? And a PhD for just one article?? The requirement is at least four articles (as principal author) published in peer-reviewed journals where I am from. These requirements sound more similar to those of a master’s degree *at best*.
Also, how is he a “prodigy” when all he does is plagiarizing articles? Any 13-year old can do that. Only a really dumb person who really needs to go back to high school if not primary school would do it in such an unsophisticated way.
Can you let me know that aspects of the institute you see as predatory? Thanks.
Yes, first they have a number of journals announced but some of them either have not published any article yet or few articles without indexing, for example, International Journal of Software Engineering and Technologies has not been published yet (http://www.iaesjournal.com/online/index.php/IJSET/issue/archive) but on the website the title says first issue was published in March, 2013 (http://www.iaesjournal.com/online/index.php/IJSET). If someone submits article and later requests for withdrawal they ask $200 for withdrawal. I consider it is predatory to lure researchers first and then ask money for withdrawal. Please give your opinion.
‘Apparently, some of the same people who are researching the drug also are involved in marketing and selling it.’
I find this a highly amusing comment considering that the pharmaceutical industry has links to all things medical. Of course they would never manipulate clinical trials, offer financial incentives or even downright lie about results.
Why is it that some ‘clinicians’ take the high ground when some new ‘more natural’ substance might be useful and yet happily prescribe drugs where in the list of possible ‘side effects’ includes ‘danger of death’.
[…] Beall has some insights about Insight Medical Publishing, and they’re not […]
Publishing to WSEAS is not free since May 15, 2015. You can check the following link from their blog:
http://wseas-cscc.blogspot.gr/2015/06/wseas-journal-submission-notification_343.html
They ask 600 euros up to 10 pages plus 50 euros for each extra page and it is not mentioned in their website.
I have had similar experiences as a reviewer for PLOS journals, which somehow have acquired a reputation as the “good” OA stuff.
Yes, recognise that all too well.
Agreed. Stuff gets through regardless if a senior author is “prominent” and/or friends with the editor. I have learned to decline assignments when I know that provision a thorough review is going to be a complete waste of time.
I wonder if observation bias explains why all these reported hijackings are so poorly done; are there lots of competent hijackings about, flying merrily under the radar?
The comment of Zena Warrior Princess is well focused.
The big problem is not the way GcMAF has been introduced and sold to patients … and not even (the big problem) is the fraudulent research of Yamamoto & Co (three papers have been retracted and one officially found full of “inconsistencies”).
In my opinion this is only a good paradigmatic case on how control in science publication works, I mean doesn’t work. Let put apart the weakness of (double) peer reviews. When I first reported that there were frauds in the papers to the directors of the journals, in 2009, they answered me that they could do nothing and there was no prove of fraud (but there was a lot of). An intense exchange of e-mails ended in a stalemate .
I wrote also to ORI (the Office of Research Integrity) in 2009, which answered me in a way that it can be defined a comic masterpiece. In a few words, it was not their competence even if it was (by their own protocol).
Things changed when a further analysis has been made by a group of researchers (who contacted me in 2013 and you mentioned) who succeeded in finding other proves of fraud and obtained the results with the papers of Yamamoto on the cure of cancers.
The paper on HIV positive people was still there, but the director of J Med Vir refused to reconsider.
Then I asked to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) to ascertain what I found (not less than invented data, invented patients, invented results). They did NOTHING, except exchanging many formal standardized letters with me and wait. They never examined and discussed the issues. I have found that they were good friends with the Director of the Journal. It was far from being a fair trial.
At last the HIV paper has been retracted for some formal “irregularities” about Ethical Committees. This formula evidently saved every culprit.
Yamamoto is Author of dozens of papers about GcMAF that should be retracted too, but nobody cares of them. Prof Marco Ruggiero and his wife dott. Pacini were well aware of Yamamoto frauds when they were supporting Yamamoto findings, because I have told them as far back as in 2009.
In conclusion, the single whistle blower finds a rubber wall, instead of being appreciated for his worthy and obscure work. The directors of the papers I contacted were well aware of the “gems of research” they published, but tried to remain silent about the story and made me lose a lot of time and efforts. The same has been made – and this is very serious – by the Agencies which should control. Only when the action was unavoidable, they decided for … a minimal lumpectomy. It is not strange to think that this behavior is not restricted to the few cases I mentioned, but it’s a method of work. How many camels are we continuously swallowing while reading “scientific journals”?
Fabio Franchi – Trieste (Italy)
MD. Specialist in Clinics of Infectious Diseases
PS I have all the documents about what I wrote
[…] rivista disposta a pubblicare qualsiasi articolo purché l’autore paghi a sufficienza, inclusi paper plagiati (e che quindi quasi certamente non hanno dovuto sottoporsi a nessuna revisione […]
Actually it doesn’t take 2 weeks, but only several days after submission. They don’t offer any reviews from the external reviewers. I think this is suspicious. Before submission I did not find any negative news about this publisher. Now I am very disappointed when I see its name appears on the potential predatory OA journal list.
