Hi Prof Beall; Can I have an idea of some open archive repositories where I can deposit some of my articles for a larger visibility and audience?
Many thanks
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Andy
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
Comment on BioMed Central: New Website, Same Old Low Quality by tekija
BMC is owned by Springer-Nature, so definitely not predatory. Its problem is lack of copyediting in many of its still rather highly priced journals and an uneven quality of peer review and plagiarism vigilance in its fleet.
See e.g. an earlier post, also he discussion.
http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/11/03/more-apparent-template-plagiarism-from-biomed-central/
Comment on Instead of a Peer Review, Reviewer Sends Warning to Authors by wkdawson
Usually, if there is a legitimate issue, journals allow comments. Moreover, if it is clearly a case of fraud, retraction watch is another place to submit a complaint.
At any rate, without a paper to evaluate and some genuine discussion about the nature of the dispute, these “flaws” and the charges of editorial malfeasance are basically gossip.
Comment on Snapshots of Recent Additions to the List of Questionable Publishers by Cleveland G Shields
you provide unending entertainment with these comments about goofy and terrible journals. keep up the good work. thanks. CGS
Comment on Snapshots of Recent Additions to the List of Questionable Publishers by Veno
Another nice write up there by you, Jeffrey, with great sense of humour in between the admonition. You seem to know the beginning and end of these journals like an “academic prophet”! Your list keeps growing every year with no end in sight! Should we throw in the towel? Certainly not, but no tangible solution in sight for now.
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by borhan
Dear Dr. Beal,
What about E-Health Telecommunication Systems and Networks (ETSN) journal?
I didn’t find it in your list.
Thanks for your kindly support.
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
This journal is from the Chinese publisher SCIRP (Scientific Research Publishing) one of the largest publishers of junk science in the world. All honest researchers should not submit papers to this low-quality, junk publisher. The publisher is on my list, so please avoid all its journals, including the one you mention.
Comment on Snapshots of Recent Additions to the List of Questionable Publishers by Unknown
Happy New Year Mr. Beall,
One small question, have you removed MDPI from your list?
Comment on Snapshots of Recent Additions to the List of Questionable Publishers by Jeffrey Beall
Yes, it was removed on appeal in late October, 2015.
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
I don’t know. I would refer you to PubMed itself.
Comment on Predatory Publishing News by Jeffrey Beall
Comment on BioMed Central: New Website, Same Old Low Quality by Jeffrey Beall
This journal does not meet the criteria for the list. It’s not a predatory journal.
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Raman
Hi Prof,
How about this publisher
http://www.rassweb.com/details-sssh/
You can also access the latest issues of SSSH from following web address:
http://www.rassweb.com/archive-details-vol-3-issue-2-sssh/
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Jeffrey Beall
Comment on Snapshots of Recent Additions to the List of Questionable Publishers by Bobo
As far as I can tell, there still hasn’t been a post about the addition of Frontiers to the list.
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Martha
hi Jeffrey, I saw your post about OMICS publishing company charging a withdrawal fee. It’s obviously an unethical scam, as they do not tell authors they plan to charge to publish or charge a withdrawal fee. They also do not try to have authors sign any contract or sign to turn over copyright to them. But even still, do they have any power to get people to pay? Do you know if scholars in this situation simply ignore the bill OMICS presents, or if OMICS has any power to go through a collection agency and ruin the author’s credit rating? Would love to know your thoughts or what others have experienced in this regard. Thank you!
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
While I cannot give legal advice, I can tell you that I have never heard of OMICS taking any legal action against any of its many unhappy customers. OMICS has no real U.S. presence. It’s based in India and uses virtual office company addresses here in America. So, subject to confirmation by a lawyer, I don’t think they have any power to force someone to pay. They do use tricks to get people to pay, such as bargaining, making up stories about expenses they’ve incurred on behalf of the author, etc. But an author should be able to withdraw his or her manuscript at any time before publication (and even afterwards in some cases). OMICS is a completely dishonest organization, so don’t be intimidated by them.
Comment on BioMed Central: New Website, Same Old Low Quality by Deepak Batura
Dear Mr Beall,
With regards to your recent post BioMed Central:New website, same old low quality. (http://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/07/biomed-central-new-website-same-old-low-quality/)
My understanding was that this open access publisher was from the Springer stable. Furthermore, I thought they were a founder member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers association.
At least one of their journals (BMC Infect dis) is MEDLINE indexed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/term=bmc+infectious+diseases)
I struggle to understand this paradox.
I may add that I have no interests with this publisher and have never submitted to their journals. I am just involved with your writings in your blog and hope to be in a position to advise my associates and students appropriately.
Comment on Snapshots of Recent Additions to the List of Questionable Publishers by MC
If it truly were predatory, don’t you think they would have accepted your paper without any problem? You might consider changing your research focus.