Comments for Scholarly Open Access

[…] year Jeffrey Beall formally releases has updated his list of predatory publishers. The list expanded over the years from 18 identified publishers in 2011 to […]

Yes, certainly.

I agree that it appears to be a completely bogus journal, but it’s not an open-access journal. They are actually trying to sell subscriptions. I don’t believe any academic library would be willing to pay to access such nonsense.

Dear Prof. Jeffrey Beall

What is your comments on the Institute for Science Information metric that has the closest name to the ISI of Thomson Reuters and its web address is “http://isithomsonreuters.org/journal”

Thanking you

Thank you for alerting me to this new publisher. I have analyzed it and added it to my list. It’s a highly-amateurish operation.

That is a deceitful and bogus organization. I have it included in my list of fake metrics companies <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I recommend that researchers avoid all journals that have impact factors given by this fake company.

Yes, ignore it, and always avoid submitting manuscripts to OMICS. If you do submit a manuscript to them, they will quickly publish it and then send you a bill for thousands of dollars.

Thomson Reuters should explain, among other things, also why one should pay for having a service blatantly worse than that provided, e.g., by the freely available SAO/NASA-ADS database. Indeed, apart from the fact that ADS coverage is much wider and accurate than ISI’s (at least in my field which is astronomy/astrophysics), it provides also for free a complete suite of many different bibliometric indexes returning a much more trustable picture of individual researchers.

Having a list of journals or publishers you label predatory shows gross inexperience with publishing, particularly submitting work for peer-review. Even SCIENCE and NATURE officials have published poor quality papers. In other words no matter the journal, good work can be found. Labeling predatory all journals from a publisher is extremely unprofessional since journals at the same publisher differ related to consistent quality and experiences of editorial board members.

Research Publish Journals is included on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

My name is Jonas. Actually, it is Jim. Sorry, I mean Kevin.

“Welcome To
International Journal of Advanced Science and Research.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development is indexed, refereed and peer-reviewed journal … ”

http://www.multiprojectjournal.com http://www.newresearchjournal.com

Thanks -- these two journals are from a firm called "<a href="http://www.researchjournalz.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Research Journals</a>." They publish 25 low-quality journals. I think they made a template error here.

[…] can publish a paper with up to 40% plagiarism in this Journal,” reports Jeffrey […]

I am prof Dr Ali yousuf aalagha baghdad university sport college in iraq teacher from 1980 take part more than 100 conference in 40 country

The reference list ought to always be excluded in a plagiarism check. If not the results are invalid.

But that aside, many plagiarized articles contain text copied from so many different sources that no single source accounts for >10%… this doesn’t mean they are false positives. It means they are prolific plagiarists.

They appear to have removed the “40%” policy from their website now!

[…] http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/01/25/omics-predatory-meetings/ […]

[…] http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/10/08/publisher-acts-suspiciously-like-omics-group/ […]

Dear Prof. Beall,
Would appreciate if you could advise me on the reliability of the following journal: International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). Thank you.

Check the same link again

http://www.ijsr.net/archive/v4i12/NOV151806.pdf

All we can see is an Apology and Retracter Letter

Latest Images