Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Scholarly Open Access
Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Ahmed Hindawi

0
0

Hindawi uses Minion for text along with Minion Math for mathematics. Minion is a modern revival by Robert Slimbach who produced a number of well-known fonts in the Adobe library such as Utopia and Adobe Garamond. Minion Math was developed by Johannes Küster to extend Minion to allow the typesetting of mathematical formulas. To my own eyes, Minion and Minion Math are extremely well designed and attractive fonts. However, as this is a matter of taste, I fully understand that others might find them unattractive.


Comment on Two Print Journals Completely Hijacked by Online Hoodlums by Bob

0
0

I am wondering if the staff of the legitimate journal (Wulfenia) are aware of such websites why this fake website is still working and has not been blocked!!!
Why they are not serious about the reputation of their journal?

Comment on New Publisher Fakes Association with Reed Elsevier by zara

0
0

come on, who can we trust? u really mean we avoid them? but they published our article! I’m really confused, send or not send?

Comment on About the Author by Markets in everything: Predatory academic publishing | AEIdeas

0
0

[...] me introduce “Scholarly Open Access” (SOA), the watchdog blog/website of Jeffrey Beall, an academic librarian at the University of Colorado-Denver, where he is also a tenured associate [...]

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Kaveh Bazargan (@kaveh1000)

Comment on LIST OF INDIVIDUAL JOURNALS by Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too) – New York Times | News Tips Live

0
0

[...] Beall, a research librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, has developed his own blacklist of what he calls “predatory open-access journals.” There were 20 publishers on his list in 2010, [...]

Comment on Introducing: The World Academic Publishing by Harald B

0
0

I recently got an e-mail requesting I submit something to their new Journal of Bioinformatics and Biological Engineering. The work based on which I (supposedly) got this invitation has nothing to do with bioinformatics and biological engineering.
I can confirm they use author fees: they charge $400 per accepted paper. (You can confirm this yourself at http://www.academicpub.org/jbbe/OpenAccessPolicy.aspx )

Comment on Research by Walter Mead

0
0

I presented a paper at a professional conference and several months later (a few days ago) received an e-mail from Lauren Jackson, Production Editor for Taylor and Francis, LLC, asking for my permission to allow for free publication of the paper in an on-line journal titled “VPPS Perspectives on Political Science.” There was no identification of an editorial board, but an address was provided for Taylor and Francis, LLC: 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. I gave my permission, granting T&F an “assignment of copyright.” Receiving no request for making any stylistic corrections or revisions, I was immediately informed that the paper “is currently in production” and that, although not required, I could provide for Open Access, and that this “service [would] require registration with Rightslink and payment of a fee.” Although this journal title is not listed among your suspect-journals and II am not interested in granting any further permission to Taylor and Francis, LLC, I am curious whether this journal has previously been called to your attention and, if so, your opinion of it.


Comment on Research by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Is the journal claiming to be peer-reviewed? Did you agree to this publication, perhaps without realizing it, when you registered for the conference? I have not received any inquires about this journal before. It appears this is a hybrid (OA and non-OA mixed together) journal. This is common. Most choose not to pay the fee, so the paper will be behind a paywall.

Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by hatuxka

0
0

Needed just as much is a blog tracking the (mal)practices of the “prestige” journals that lead to the rise of a significant portion of this kind of publishing.

Comment on The Epitome of Predatory Publishers by sahanamadhyastha

0
0

Hi Dr. Beall
What is your assessment of journals published by Kamal reaj enterprises?

Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Bogus Academic Conferences Lure Scientists | shpot

0
0

[...] a recent NYT article about the phenomenon was the existence of entire fake scientific conferences. According to Beall, these same predatory publishers spam the email inboxes of scientists — frequently using the [...]

Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Bogus Academic Conferences Lure Scientists | 6ate

0
0

[...] a recent NYT article about the phenomenon was the existence of entire fake scientific conferences. According to Beall, these same predatory publishers spam the email inboxes of scientists — frequently using the [...]

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Jessica

0
0

Under this situation of so many spam emails, why Hindawi should not be classified as Predatory publishers? Beall, can you come out with answer. Beall himself describes Hindawi as House of Spam. When AL says, most often the subjects are not related to the work of AL, can Beall come with right way of description to the marketing strategy of Hindawi.

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Jessica

0
0

Why this is borderline? Can you explain?


Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by John

0
0

Jeffrey Beall will keep Hindawi in so-called borderline case for next 20 years. Everyone knows why he does so.

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Ali

0
0

Peer review by Hindawi is very week. Hindawi has a lot of case report journals with a lot of poor quality and plagiarized materials.

In Hindawi’s ISRN journals, peer review is ridiculous. Each manuscript is sent up to 5 reviewers. Based on majority, the decision is made. If 3 out of 5 reviewers give positive feedback, they publish. This is stupid peer review policy. The acceptance or rejection should be done by the editor (not Hindawi’s staff) based on strength of comments made by the reviewers rather than number of reviewers giving positive feedback.

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by Ahmed Hindawi

0
0

One quick reference for the revenue per article would be the recent article in Nature titled Open access: The true cost of science publishing: “Data from the consulting firm Outsell in Burlingame, California, suggest that the science-publishing industry generated $9.4 billion in revenue in 2011 and published around 1.8 million English-language articles — an average revenue per article of roughly $5,000. Analysts estimate profit margins at 20–30% for the industry, so the average cost to the publisher of producing an article is likely to be around $3,500–4,000.” You can read the full article at http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676.

I agree with you that there are some differences between subscription publishers and open access publishers (e.g., open access publishers wouldn’t have large sales forces that are needed at selling subscriptions to libraries). However, they both share most of what we think of as scholarly journal publishing. For example, subscription and open access publishers both have the need to create journals that are well respected by the academic community. They both need to peer revenue manuscripts submitted to their journals in order to accept only those manuscripts that match or exceed a particular level of quality and to provide their submitting authors (including those whose manuscripts are rejected) with a professional service that helps them improve their current and future manuscripts. Subscription and open access publishers both need to publish their accepted manuscripts using high quality standards and make them as discoverable as possible (by getting them indexed in appropriate secondary databases and search engines).

But as far as revenues, costs, and profits are concerned, I think the biggest difference between subscription publishers and open access publishers is that the open access is creating a competitive market unlike the subscription market, which is anything but competitive. This is an argument that has been presented many times by many people over the last few years. It basically boils down to the following: As a reader, a researcher does not have the open to choose what to read (the proofs of this mathematical theorem is in this paper published in this journal, not anywhere else) but as an author, a researcher has a few options of where to publish their paper (a few journals within the same quality band covering the same subject area). I believe this will lead to a significant contraction of the scholarly journal market (my best guess would be a contraction by a factor of somewhere between 2 and 10).

In a truly competitive, commoditized market, producers of a particular good or service cannot charge much higher than the average ongoing cost of that good or service. Please note that I didn’t say: producers cannot charge much higher than their own cost. In a competitive market (and I believe that open access publishing will establish a much more competitive market than the current subscription publishing market), an individual company may have a high profit margin, if that company is able to lower their cost significantly below the “average ongoing cost” within their industry. That company can enjoy a much higher than average profit margin for a period of time, until their competitors become able to lower their costs to a matching level (in which case price competition will force them to lower their prices). I don’t think open access will completely commoditize the market, but it will certainly create a much more competitive market that we have with subscription publishing and this will have a dramatic effect on the revenue per articles that publishers will be generating.

Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Bogus Academic Conferences Lure Scientists « Music RSS

0
0

[...] me in a new NYT essay about a phenomenon was a existence of whole fake systematic conferences. According to Beall, these same rapacious publishers spam a email inboxes of scientists — frequently regulating a [...]

Comment on The Epitome of Predatory Publishers by Lettura per astemi – Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

0
0

[...] Da aggiungere alla lista di Beall: The Epitome of Predatory Publishers. [...]

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images