Thanks!

At this time, it appears this publisher is not an open-access publisher. Therefore it is out of scope for my work. Their website is extremely confusing and difficult to navigate. The authors who publish their articles in these journals will essentially be hiding their work.

No. This journal is published by the “World Business Institute,” a publisher that is included on my list. I recommend avoiding this journal and the others from this “Institute.”

is Wulfenia journal (ISSN: 1561-882X) is not standalonne journal?

It’s a hijacked journal. Be very careful. If you submit a paper, make sure it’s to the authentic journal, not the hijacked one.

Your help is very reassuring to me. I sincerely would like to give my gratitude for your support.

what about elixir international journal of current research? I was invited to publish in their journal. Is it not in your list? Please!

Jeffrey Beall wrote in a blog post dated 14 January 2016 ( https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/14/another-controversial-paper-from-fronters/ ):
.
“COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, is experiencing problems that are affecting its credibility. Some believe that it has succumbed to cronyism, and as evidence of this they point to the election of Frontiers employee Mirjam J. Curno to COPE’s eleven-member Trustee Board. I guess if you own a major pay-to-publish operation known for regularly accepting payments to publish highly-questionable scholarly articles, having one of your employees on COPE’s Trustee Board could be quite convenient.
.
The COPE board’s chair, Virginia Barbour, has regrettably politicized COPE by writing strident essays favoring open-access and attacking Elsevier. She uses military metaphors (“The battle for open access is far from over”) to fan the flames. I think it’s inappropriate for a publishing ethics board chair to publicly favor one publishing model over another, to singularly attack one publisher that uses her unfavored model, and to politicize a so-called ethics organization. Moreover, like many open-access zealots, Barbour underhandedly fails to acknowledge today’s most significant source of ethical failures in scholarly publishing — and the biggest threat to science — predatory publishers and journals. Increasingly, those who draw large salaries from open-access publishing are the most fervent proponents of it. Their ideology supports their paychecks, or the other way around.”
.
.
I am hereby disclosing copies of some of the e-mails which I have exchanged with Griffith University about issues of Dr. Virginia Barbour. This e-mail correspondence started on 11 October 2015 and it was finished on 15 March 2016. Dr. Virgina Barbour is listed as Academic Titleholder at the School of Medecine of Griffith University ( https://www.griffith.edu.au/health/school-medicine/staff/academic-title-holders ). “School of Medicine, Griffith University” is also listed as the single affiliation of Dr. Virginia Barbour in Barbour et al. 2016 ( http://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-015-1107-1 [received 6 July 2015, published 21 January 2016]).
.
I also disclose that I was heavily turned down by Dr. Virginia Barbour et al. in the summer of 2015 when I told Dr. Virginia Barbour et al. that I was expecting that all of them are always working according the VSNU guidelines (see
http://www.rug.nl/about-us/organization/rules-and-regulations/algemeen/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/code-wetenschapsbeoefening-14-en.pdf and http://www.rug.nl/about-us/organization/rules-and-regulations/algemeen/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/wetenschappelijke-integriteit-12-en.pdf ). There are many similarities between the VSNU guidelines and the scientific integrity policy of the Sainsbury Laboratory ( http://www.tsl.ac.uk/about-tsl/scientific-integrity/ , see also Kamoun & Zipfel, 2016, “Scientific record: Class uncorrected errors as misconduct”, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7593/full/531173e.html ).
.
.
1. “From: Klaas van Dijk; Date: 2015-10-11 9:47 GMT+02:00; Subject: Academic Title Holder Dr Barbour is deliberately refusing to work together with me to get retracted a paper which is loaded with fabricated data To: Simon Broadley; Cc: David Ellwood

Dear Professor Broadley,

I am hereby reporting to you that Academic Title Holder Dr. Virginia Barbour is deliberately refusing to work together with me to get retracted a paper which is loaded with fabricated data. I fail to understand how this behaviour of Dr. Barbour is in line with the “Griffith University Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research” (TRIM document 2013/0014781).

I am hereby reporting to you that I am unable to find a COI statement of Dr Barbour on the website of Griffith University. I fail to understand how this is in line with the “Griffith University School of Medicine Conflict of Interest and Sponsorship Guidelines”, in particular because I am being informed that Dr. Barbour has a wide range of (side-)activities.

Please send me a response in which is stated that you have recieved this e-mail in good order.

Best wishes, Klaas van Dijk / Groningen / The Netherlands”
.
.
2. “From: Simon Broadley; To: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 9:46 AM; Subject: Out Of Office – Business Re: Academic Title Holder Dr Barbour is deliberately refusing to work together with me to get retracted a paper which is loaded with fabricated data.

Dear Colleagues. I am currently away as Head of School on Business and will return to the office on Monday 12th October 2015. During this period, the Acting Head of School will be Professor Gary Rogers. During this time, all urgent School matters should be forwarded to Professor Gary Rogers. If you are requiring: an appointment with myself or the A/Head of School or assistance with Head of School matters, please contact my PA Teresa Russo. For any Administration matters please contact Julie Saville or Tina Koutsellis. Regards, Simon Broadley”
.
.
3. “From: Klaas van Dijk; To: Rick Williams; Cc Andrea Bishop, Richard Porter; Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:24 AM Subject: Please forward to me scientific points of view of Academic Titleholder Virginia Barbour on various queries about a faulty paper which is loaded with fabricated data

Dear Mr. Williams, Thanks alot for your kind and friendly response of last Friday.

(1): can you please forward to me, and as well to Richard Porter (in cc), and ASAP, the scientific point of view of Dr. Barbour (cf section 6 of part A of https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf ) about the statement of Richard Porter (‘the following paper was not based upon any validated scientific facts’, see attachment) on a faulty paper about the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler (see https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7 for backgrounds).

(2): can you please forward to me, and as well to Richard Porter (in cc), and ASAP, the scientific point of view of Dr. Barbour (cf section 6 of part A of https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf ) about the statement of Dr. Çağan Şekercioğlu, a member of the Editorial Board of the journal in question (“From: Çağan Şekercioğlu To: Klaas van Dijk Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 5:34 PM, I agree with you that this paper must be retracted, and I implore Max Kasparek to do so.”). See https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7#fb42415 for the context.

(3): can you please forward to me, and as well to Richard Porter (in cc), and ASAP, the scientific point of view of Dr. Barbour (cf section 6 of part A of https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf ) about the statement of emeritus professor Dumont (Gent University), another member of the Editorial Board of ZME. (“From: Henri Dumont To: Klaas van Dijk Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:52 AM Hoewel ik geen ornitholoog maar limnoloog ben voel ik aan dat er inderdaad iets niet klopt met de door U bekritizeerde paper. (…) en dat brengt mij tot de volgende vraag: wat bedoelt U met de ruwe gegevens die U wil zien? Ik vrees nl dat die niet bestaan.”). See https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7#fb42415 for the context.

Thanks in advance for forwarding me the scientific responses of Dr. Barbour on these three queries. Please don’t hesitate to contact me when there are errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side.

Best wishes, Klaas van Dijk / Groningen / The Netherlands”
.
.
4. “From: Andrea Bishop; To: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 11:20 PM; Subject: Re: Please forward to me scientific points of view of Academic Titleholder Virginia Barbour on various queries about a faulty paper which is loaded with fabricated data

Dear Mr van Dijk, I refer you to the earlier correspondence from Griffith University on this matter, dated 19 February 2016. The correspondence provides the basis for our stated determination that no further action will be taken in regard to your request to remove Adjunct Prof Virginia Barbour as an academic title holder at Griffith University.

Kind regards, Andrea, Professor Andrea Bishop, Director, Office for Research, Griffith University, Room 0.12, Bray Centre (N54), Nathan campus, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia”
.
.
5. “From: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 10:05 AM; Subject: The Head of School of Medicine professor David Ellwood must man up and must immediately remove Academic Titleholder Dr. Virginia Barbour from Griffith University

Dear all, There is until now no response from Mr. Williams on my e-mail of last Monday to Griffith University about ongoing issues of Dr. Virgina Barbour (see below). There is as well no response from anyone else from Griffith University. This implies for example that there are no errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side (see below).

Dr. Virginia Barbour is still listed as Academic Titleholder at https://www.griffith.edu.au/health/school-medicine/staff/academic-title-holders (despite several requests from my side to remove her from this list).

I recall that I have reported for the first time on 11 October 2015 to Griffith University my concerns about the behaviour of Dr. Virginia Barbour (see below). This e-mail was received in good order by Griffith University (see below). We are right now 12 March 2016. No one has rebutted that Dr. Virginia Barbour is currently deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct.

I have therefore concluded that professor David Ellwood, Head of the School of Medicine of Griffith University, fully agrees with my statement that Dr. Virginia Barbour, listed as Academic Titleholder at the School of Medicine of Griffith University, is currently deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct.

I have also concluded that the non-response from the side of Griffith University on my e-mail of last Monday, and the non-response from the side of Griffith University on other e-mails from my side about these issues of Dr. Virginia Barbour, is caused by an order of Dr. Virginia Barbour that it is not allowed for anyone at Griffith University to communicate anymore with Klaas van Dijk.

Such a behaviour is of course totally unacceptable for anyone at Griffith University. Such a behaviour is even disasterous for the reputation of a scientist (Bourne & Barbour 2011, http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002108 ).

I therefore pledge professor David Ellwood to man up, to show leadership, to ignore the requests (etc.) of Dr. Virginia Barbour, and/or the requests of allies of Dr. Virginia Barbour (this includes requests etc. from Dr. Andrew Barbour, the husband of Dr. Virginia Barbour), and to remove immediately Dr. Virginia Barbour from Griffith University, together with a press release with the motives why Dr. Virginia Barbour has been removed from Griffith University.

Removing immediately Dr. Virginia Barbour from Griffith University, together with a press release with the motives, is the best option to ensure to the rest of the world that Griffith University has indeed 0 tolerance towards people who are covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct. See also http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7593/full/531173e.html

Thanks in advance for your efforts and thanks in advance for a response. Don’t hesitate to contact me when there are errors / mistakes in texts from my side.

Best wishes, Klaas van Dijk / Groningen / The Netherlands

DISCLAIMER: I am hereby declaring that that this e-mail was prepared in good faith, that this is also the case for all other e-mails and/or texts from my side about the faulty paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler, a paper which is loaded with fabricated data. I am hereby declaring that all of these e-mails / texts from my side, to Griffith University and to all other parties, are 100% honest e-mails / texts. Anyone who is claiming that I am dishonest, and/or that my behaviour is partial, and/or vexatious and/or that my statements about the paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warber are untrue / false (etc.), will first need to provide me access to the full list of requested raw research data (see https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7#fb31538 for the full list), and will need to accept that I, Richard Porter, and all co-workers of Richard Porter are able to scrutinize this entire set of raw research data.”
.
.
6. “From: David Ellwood; To: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 4:06 AM; Subject: Your email correspondence with the School of Medicine

Dear Professor van Dijk,

Thank you for your recent email dated March 12th, and the copies of emails to various other members of the staff of Griffith University which I have received over the last few months.

As you are aware. Virginia Barbour is an academic title-holder at this university, which is an honorary title. Her various roles in medical publishing have no particular relevance to this position, and the School of Medicine has no connection with any of the activities which are of concern to you. We have no intention to respond to your calls to remove her from our list of academic title-holders.

I must inform you that I consider the frequent emails about this matter, and the content of the most recent one which was copied to multiple others within the school, to be a form of harassment and request that you desist from this immediately. I do not wish to receive any further emails from you about this matter, nor do I want you to correspond with any members of the staff of the School of Medicine,

Your Sincerely, David Ellwood

David A Ellwood, MA, DPhil (Oxon), MB, BChir (Cantab), FRANZCOG (CMFM), DDU, Professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Acting Head of School & Deputy Head of School (Research), Academic Lead for Equity, Selections & Diversity, School of Medicine, Level 8.38, Griffith Health Centre (G40), Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University QLD 4222, AUSTRALIA”

Thank you for your List, it is valuable to figure who may or may not be legit or quesitonable.

I never agreed to review a manuscript for Baishideng Publishing Group, and they sent me this (first email contact):

Thank you very much for supporting the World Journal of Clinical Cases by agreeing to undertake a peer review of ESPS Manuscript NO: 24782, entitled Surgeon-Performed Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in severe eye trauma.

To date, your comments on the manuscript have not been received through our Express Submission and Peer-review System (ESPS). Please click http://www.wjgnet.com/esps (removed rest of link) and enter the “Manuscript Detail” section to browse all of the information about this paper, including the Journal, Manuscript Type, Manuscript Number, Manuscript Title, Submit User, Correspondence, Article Scope, Specialty Type, Keywords, Abstract, Cover Letter, and Publication Lists.

Please upload your comments to the ESPS by the specified deadline.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us via e-mail at: esps@wjgnet.com.

Once again, thank you for being an active member of our peer reviewers and for contributing your time and expertise to maintain excellent quality of science communication through the World Journal of Clinical Cases.

Best regards,

Lian-Sheng Ma, President and Company Editor-in-Chief

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc

I think they need to go back on the list.

Thank you. I have been receiving many reports lately about Baishideng, a publisher operated from a house in Pleasanton, California.

Dear Bill, dear All,

Many, many thanks for your work Bill.

I’m wandering if someone can imagine a logo that we could use to respond to predators journals emails we receive everyday.

Best,

Fabien

“Research Integrity and Peer Review” is a rather new journal of publisher BMC. See http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/about/editorial-board This journal exists for already at least a few months. The journal has until now not published articles and/or other contributions ( http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles ).
.
Dr. Virginia Barbour is listed as one of the members of the Editorial Board of this journal.
.
Jeffrey Beall wrote in https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/14/another-controversial-paper-from-fronters/ : “The COPE board’s chair, Virginia Barbour, has regrettably politicized COPE by writing strident essays favoring open-access and attacking Elsevier. She uses military metaphors (“The battle for open access is far from over”) to fan the flames. I think it’s inappropriate for a publishing ethics board chair to publicly favor one publishing model over another, to singularly attack one publisher that uses her unfavored model, and to politicize a so-called ethics organization. Moreover, like many open-access zealots, Barbour underhandedly fails to acknowledge today’s most significant source of ethical failures in scholarly publishing — and the biggest threat to science — predatory publishers and journals.” (…..). “COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, is experiencing problems that are affecting its credibility. Some believe that it has succumbed to cronyism, and as evidence of this they point to the election of Frontiers employee Mirjam J. Curno to COPE’s eleven-member Trustee Board. I guess if you own a major pay-to-publish operation known for regularly accepting payments to publish highly-questionable scholarly articles, having one of your employees on COPE’s Trustee Board could be quite convenient.”
.
.
Details with complaints against the acting of Dr. Virginia Barbour can be found at https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/12/one-problem-with-the-scholarly-publishing-industry/#comment-405846
.
Please contact me when there are errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side.
.
DISCLAIMER: I am hereby declaring that that this text was prepared in good faith, that this is also the case for all other e-mails and/or texts from my side about the faulty paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler, a paper which is loaded with fabricated data. I am hereby declaring that all of these e-mails / texts from my side are 100% honest e-mails / texts. Anyone who is claiming that I am dishonest, and/or that my behaviour is partial, and/or vexatious and/or that my statements about the paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warber are untrue / false (etc.), will first need to provide me access to the full list of requested raw research data (see https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7#fb31538 for the full list), and will need to accept that I, Richard Porter, and all co-workers of Richard Porter are able to scrutinize this entire set of raw research data.”

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I am aware that you do not keep any list on conference organisers, but I hope that this short exchange of views helps the scientific community in some way. At least it is noted here for future reference.

Best wishes,
Mark

and the manager is Adam Smith !!!!!

A bogus and predatory conference invitation:

PCS 3rd Annual Global Cancer Conference-2016
Theme: United Against Cancers Locally, Nationally and Internationally
Time: Nov. 5- Nov. 6, 2016
Place: Marrakesh, Morocco
http://www.pcscongress.com/gcc2016/

Makes Hindawi look like a venerable institution.

Yes, when I include a publisher on the list, I recommend that researchers not send papers to all the journals from that publisher.

Mr Beall,
What is your opinion about Elective Medical Journal from Pakistan-it charges to publish , and it is still locked for public viewing( and is indexed in DOAJ)