[...] L’editoria predona è un fatto ben documentato. Per dirla con il Pulitzer, invito il “co-signer” ad approfondire il tema. [...]
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Pesce risorto, cont. – Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it
↧
↧
Comment on New Term: MOAMJ = Multidisciplinary Open Access Mega Journal by Felipe G. Nievinski
Something like this?
Cost Effectiveness for Open Access Journals
http://www.eigenfactor.org/openaccess/
↧
Comment on Open-Access Publisher Launches with 355 New Journals by David Gurarie
Another “open access” racket
↧
Comment on LIST OF INDIVIDUAL JOURNALS by It’s a Jungle Out There | jcommunicators
[...] are quite a few predatory journals (http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/) and publishers (http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/). Here in Finland, reliable journals and [...]
↧
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by It’s a Jungle Out There | jcommunicators
[...] are quite a few predatory journals (http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/) and publishers (http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/). Here in Finland, reliable journals and publishers are presumably well covered in the Publication [...]
↧
↧
Comment on Does Scholarly Open-Access Publishing Increase Author Misconduct? by Alex H
In several cases, the salami is not sliced but made from slices. Data and results presented in a full 8.000 word article are accumulating during a year or even more. I do not think that publishing partial or preliminary results in the form of short articles is misconduct. It is a must as long as my department expect me to publish at least X papers/academic year. However, the publication list of such scholars are virtually indiscernable from those who regularly apply the technique of “salami slicing”.
↧
Comment on Does Scholarly Open-Access Publishing Increase Author Misconduct? by Hachani
Those who doubt “salami slicing ” should read
Broad and Wade Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science.It says a lot about academic misconduct and salami slicing seems as a mere fault ……
↧
Comment on OA Publisher Offers Author Fee Waivers in Exchange for Citing Its Journals by Tveksamma förlag – release på den engelska versionen | Forskningsrelaterat
[...] Det senaste knepet att höja tidskriftens impact factor är att köpa citeringar. Vissa förlag har börjat skicka tack-meddelanden till dem som har citerat artiklar från dess tidskrifter i andra förlags tidskrifter. I dessa e-postbrev skriver de att de erbjuder gratis publicering av dina kommande artiklar i sina tidskrifter så klart om du citerar deras artiklar tillräckligt många gånger. Syftet med detta förfarande är alltså att öka citeringar så att förlagets tidskrifter och därmed tidskriftens får hög impact factor, vilket är oetiskt. Läs mer om detta och se ett exempel på tack-e-postbrevet i Jeffery Beall’s blogg. [...]
↧
Comment on OA Publisher Offers Author Fee Waivers in Exchange for Citing Its Journals by Predatory publishers – A guide | Forskningsrelaterat
[...] The latest way in trying to up the journals impact factor is to buy citations. Some publishers have started to send thank-you e-mails to those who have cited articles from their journals in other publishers’ journals. In these e-mails they say they will not charge you APC if you ever want to publish in one of their journal with the condition that you continue to cite their articles. The aim with this is to increase the number of citations so that the journal’s impact factor will increase. This kind of play with impact factor is unethical and something serious science should not be a part of. Read more of this and other topics on predatory publishers in Jeffery Beall’s blog. [...]
↧
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by Predatory Publishers | Peer to Peer Review
[...] None of these are on Jeffrey Beall’s “Possible Predatory Publishers” list at the Scholarly Open Access site, however. Beall’s list consists of newly-formed open access (OA) journals that charge authors [...]
↧
Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Kaveh Bazargan (@kaveh1000)
Hindawi’s products are of high quality. The PDFs are beautifully typeset. More importantly, the XML is well structured, unlike most publishers’ XML (whether open access or traditional).
Apple makes huge profits, but people still love them!
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by srul katz
I have had very negative experience with the OMICS Group. I foolishly agreed to be in the Editorial Board of one of their journals. At some point I became suspicious and started calling to their office in Nevada. There is no OMICS office at the address they show. It is an office of some law company, which represents interests of OMICS Group, as well as hundreds of other foreign companies in US. The whole OMICS Group company with all its employees is located in India. They hide themselves behind fake non-Indian names (I communicate via e-mail with Gracia Oliver). It is not much difference between these guys and the criminals who pretend that they were a model and duped a physics professor from North Carolina (there was a fascinating article in NYTimes Magazine about the story: the professor ended up in jail in Argentina convicted for drug trafficking). After finding very damaging posts on the web about the OMICS Group I started bombarding them on all e-mail addresses and phone numbers I could find demanding to remove my name from the Editorial Board. No result. Then I composed an email describing what I learned and sent it to the Editor-in-Cheif of the journal asking him to help me to remove my name from the board. No response. Then I sent email to all board members and cc to all OMICS addresses I could find. This time is worked: they removed my name from their web site. A couple of board members followed me and also quit. But very few.
My advice to everybody: do not deal with the OMICS Group in any form or shape.
PS: I use alias because I still feel ashamed that I allowed to be duped in the first place.
↧
Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Nils
Jeffrey,
Some time ago, you wrote that you did not consider Hindawi a predatory OA publisher, but kept it under close scrutiny. Does this still hold true?
What annoys me most about that publisher are the spam emails proposing to become a “Lead guest editor”. Where is the difference to the classical Pyramid scheme?
↧
↧
Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Jeffrey Beall
Hi, Nils,
I consider it borderline, and I have decided to be cautious and not include borderline cases on my list. So, yes, this still holds true.
Thanks,
Jeffrey
↧
Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Nils
I do hope Donald Knuth never sees this kind of statement, after all he has done for typesetting,
↧
Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Kaveh Bazargan (@kaveh1000)
Actually, Knuth would be very proud of Hindawi, as they are one of the very few publishers who do their own production, and one of the few who do use Knuth’s TeX for typesetting their PDFs. ;-)
I am just comparing the end product (XML and PDF) of Hindawi’s papers with those of other publishers, and very few match the quality of Hindawi.
↧
Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by moom
How are staffers making decisions any different to what the Nature Group does?
↧
↧
Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Peter Matthews
Here is another key point raised:
“The money that academic libraries used to pay for subscriptions is now being spent on article processing charges, it seems, and universities will soon be back to where they started from with open access.”
Under the subscription system, authors (and institutions supporting authors) did not pay for the production costs (which do exist, for serious publishers), but readers and institutions supporting libraries did. Institutions have been trying to cut library budgets, but must now realise that they then have to give more support to researchers who face author fees.
Perhaps in any given research field, there would be an ideal mix of journal types available for publishing research:
1. Fully-funded (but naturally rare) institutional publications that are free to contributors and authors alike. These can aim to set standards in terms of academic quality, or support for esoteric areas of research, or for local-language publication.
2. Contributor funded publications that are free to readers.
3. Subscription funded publications that are free to contributors.
4. Various combinations of the above.
Regardless of the model, we need ways to assess cost-effectiveness, fair pricing, review methods and recognition for reviewer efforts, support for authors, support for authors, archival standards, approaches to marketing, distribution requirements, academic reliability, and so on. Jeffrey Beale has been right to attack misleading and unethical practices apparent with many new publishers.
It also seems that many new and old publishers are hoping to expand and survive through academic hegemony – an approach that researchers must resist. We have our own responsibility to support the journals and publishers we know and like… we should not simply sit back and complain about smaller publishers being swallowed by larger publishers, or about production being moved ‘offshore’ with respect to wherever we happen to stand.
We need a multiple sets of standards, or quality monitoring services, that support best practices across a range of publishing styles and methods. The aim should be to give authors and readers a wide range of good options, rather than the present multitude of confusing and unreliable options, with just a few [often unattainable] gems scattered among them.
↧
Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Nils
To me, mathematical formulas in Hindawi papers, especially sums, integrals and size of brackets, look as ugly as those produced by Word. Did you guys tamper with Metafonts to get this result?
↧
Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Ahmed Hindawi
I have to say that I am very surprised by the incorrect claim about our editorial and peer-review process given that every single paper we publish has the name of the editorial board member who handled the paper and recommended its acceptance published on that paper. We also provide full statistics about our acceptance and rejection rates of every single journal that we publish at http://www.hindawi.com/statistics/. Our average acceptance rate is between 35 and 40%.
I am also surprised to see that what concerns Mr Beall is the percentage of our profit margin rather than the actual cost of our publishing program to the academic community. In 2012, we have published more than 22,000 articles with total revenue of about $13m. This is about $600 per published article. Given that the industry-wide average revenue per article is estimated to be around $4000, the academic community would have paid $88m to get these articles published under the toll access model. This is a $75m less to the academic community while ensuring that these articles are full open access.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
