Comments for Scholarly Open Access

Hello Dr. Beall,

As a scientist I am always skeptical about emails from ‘publishers’ requesting that I submit a manuscript. Having said that, I am also curious about the emails and journals. Whenever I decide to have a look, I always reference your list(s) as a screen. I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts, I am glad someone has taken then time and initiative to compile a list.

Thank you…

Warm greetings, Jeffrey

This, Journal of Governance and Regulation

http://www.virtusinterpress.org/-Journal-of-Governance-and-.html

I looked at this journal and it so feels very suspicious. They demand €340 post acceptance , with the paper meant to be published within 9 months , but if you want your paper to be publishes quickly , you have to pay more.

I checked your list and this is not present.

Your views , please.

I agree with you. I have this journal's publisher, Virtus Interpress, included on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Because there are so many individual journals, I prefer to list only the publisher whenever I can, and the listing is for all the journals from each publisher. I would recommend that you find a stronger publisher for your work.

Do people even show up to these conferences? do they even truly occur?

I sarcastically tell my students to be careful of journals starting with “International” or “Global.”

SciencePG is certainly a fake journal and they have been spamming madly.

Yes, they are actually held. They can be very profitable for the organizers, so the strategy is to create many conferences that occur frequently.

Content of he Journal website is quite funny. Many grammatical mistakes and sentence framing errors. And, look… Global Impact Factor: 0.0.876

Well, International Journal of Cancer is actually quite good. This is the “original” International journal – they used this name since 60th. “Global” though… can’t think of any good journal that want to be “global”

In my discipline, the word “international” often refers to the sub-discipline (e.g., international trade, international economics) which is of course legitimate and understandable. However, I have noticed that when the word does not refer to a sub-discipline, it is very often a Beall listed journal. I don’t recall ever coming across a “Global” journal that was not predatory.

I think it meets the criteria for inclusion on my list.
Note that this journal, like many open-access journals, appears to have died. It’s last published issue is from January 2015, and this issue only has a single, short article in it. Most definitely, do not submit your paper to this journal.

Well, for 2014, the journal GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY has an Impact Factor of 8.044. It is published since 1995 by Wiley-Blackwell and in the ISI Journal Citation Reports it ranks 1/44 (Biodiversity Conservation); 3/223 (Environmental Sciences); 5/145 (Ecology) making it a prime journal in global change research.

Or globally international. Beware ALSO of internationally global they are the worst !!!

Dr. Virginia Barbour also holds positions at QUT, the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia https://www.qut.edu.au/
http://staff.qut.edu.au/details?id=barbourg reveals that Dr. Barbour is a professor at the ‘Division of Research and Commercialisation, Office of Research Ethics & Integrity’ and that she holds a visitor’s position at the ‘Technology, Information and Learning Support, DVC Office (TILS).’
Dr. Barbour is listed as Advisor of the Director of the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity at QUT, see http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/about/contacts/

QUT has a bunch of Research Integrity Advisors (RIA’s). “When should I speak to a Research Integrity Advisor? If you have a concern about the conduct of research at QUT or research being conducted in collaboration with QUT, you should speak to a Research Integrity Advisor. The context of your concern is important. Concerns may relate to: the ethical conduct of research (…) research practices (….).”
See http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/about/contacts/integrityadvisors.jsp

So I have contacted on 9 February 2016 professor Pettitt, one of the RIA’s, about the current behaviour of Dr. Virginia Barbour. There was no response. I have sent him, and the other RIA’s, a reminder on 12 February 2016. I have until now only received two auto-replies. I did not receive a response on reminder #2, sent on 16 February 2016 to these RIA’s. I did not receive a response on reminder #3, sent on 17 February 2016 to the RIA’s and to the nine scientists with a Featured Profile at http://staff.qut.edu.au/ There was no response on a follow-up on reminder #3, sent on 20 February 2016 to the RIA’s, to the scientists at QUT with a Featured profile, and to some other people at QUT.

A formal complaint against Dr. Barbour was filed on 20 February 2016 to the Head of School / Executive Officer of the Division of Research and Commercialisation of QUT and, seperately, to the Head of School / Executive Officer of the Division of Technology, Information and Learning Support of QUT. I have until now not received a response.

So I have until now only received two auto-replies from QUT. This implies for example that QUT has until now not rebutted the statement: ‘Dr. Virginia Barbour is at the moment deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct’.
See below for the correspondence with QUT about issues of Dr. Virginia Barbour.

1. “From: Klaas van Dijk; To: A. Pettitt; Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 9:01 PM; Subject: [Research Integrity Advisor] Dr Virginia Barbour of QUT is deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct
Dear professor Pettitt, I would like to report that professor dr. Virginia Barbour is currently deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct. Please contact Dr. Barbour for the details and please forward to me the response of Dr. Barbour. Please remove ASAP Dr. Barbour from QUT in case Dr. Barbour is unwilling to change her current behaviour. Thanks in advance for your co-operation and for a response. Best wishes, Klaas van Dijk”

2. “From: Klaas van Dijk; To: RIA’s; Cc: A. Pettitt; Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:08 PM; Subject: [Research Integrity Advisor] Dr Virginia Barbour of QUT is deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct
Dear RIA of QUT, There is as yet no response from professor Pettitt (in cc) on my e-mail of last Tuesday to him. Also Dr. Barbour has not contacted me. I am therefore sending you a reminder. Please contact Dr. Barbour for the details and please forward to me the response of Dr. Barbour. Please remove ASAP Dr. Barbour from QUT in case Dr. Barbour is unwilling to change her current behaviour and/or when Dr. Barbour is unwilling to communicate with me about the topic in the subject of this e-mail. Thanks in advance for your co-operation and for a response. Best wishes, Klaas van Dijk”

3. “From: Bianca Capra; To: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:08 PM; Subject: Automatic reply: [Research Integrity Advisor] Dr Virginia Barbour of QUT is deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct
Thank-you for your email. I am on Parental leave from the 22 January until 28th November inclusive. I will only be checking my email sporadically during this period. Cheers”

4. “From: Martin Sillence; To: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:08 PM; Subject: Automatic reply: [Research Integrity Advisor] Dr Virginia Barbour of QUT is deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct
I am currently overseas on business and leave and will have intermittent access to email while I am away. I shall attend to your email witin a few days, or soon after I return on Feb 17. If the matter is urgent please either contact the School Office on (..), or leave a message on my mobile (..) and I shall return your call as soon as possible.”

5. “From: Klaas van Dijk; To: RIA’s; Cc: A. Pettitt; Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 9:05 AM; Subject: [Research Integrity Advisor] Reminder RE: Dr Virginia Barbour of QUT is deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct
Dear RIA of QUT, There is as yet no response from professor Pettitt (in cc) on my e-mail of last Tuesday to him. There is as yet also no response from professor Pettitt on my reminder from last Friday to him. I only received two auto-replies. Also Dr. Barbour has not contacted me. I am therefore sending you a reminder. Please contact Dr. Barbour for the details and please forward to me the response of Dr. Barbour. Please remove ASAP Dr. Barbour from QUT in case Dr. Barbour is unwilling to change her current behaviour and/or when Dr. Barbour is unwilling to communicate with me about the topic in the subject of this e-mail. I would like to thank Dr. Capra and Dr. Sillence for sending me an auto-response on my e-mail of last Friday. Both auto-responses imply that my e-mail of last Friday was received by QUT in good order. Thanks in advance for your co-operation and for a response. Best wishes, Klaas van Dijk”

6. “From: Klaas van Dijk; To RIA’s and to the nine scientists at QUT with a Featured Profile; Cc: A. Pettitt; Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 8:51 AM; Subject: Reminder 3 that Dr Virginia Barbour of QUT is deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct
Dear all, There is as yet no response on my e-mail to RIA professor Pettitt. I only received two auto-replies on reminder #1 from last Friday. There is as yet no response on reminder #2 from yesterday. I am therefore sending reminder #3. Also Dr. Barbour has not contacted me. Please contact Dr. Barbour for the details and please forward to me the response of Dr. Barbour. Please remove ASAP Dr. Barbour from QUT in case Dr. Barbour is unwilling to change her current behaviour and/or when Dr. Barbour is unwilling to communicate with me about the topic in the subject of this e-mail. I would like to thank Dr. Capra and Dr. Sillence for sending me an auto-reply on my e-mail of last Friday. Both auto-replies imply that my e-mail of last Friday was received by QUT in good order. Thanks in advance for your co-operation and for a response. Best wishes, Klaas van Dijk”

7. “From: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 10:48 AM; Subject: Dr Virginia Barbour of QUT is deeply embroiled in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct (…)

Dear all at QUT, There is as yet no response from anyone from QUT on reminder #3, and on reminder #2, in which I report to various members of the staff at QUT that Dr. Virginia Barbour of QUT is currently deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct. There is also no follow-up from anyone from QUT on my e-mail to professor Pettitt, sent to him on 9 February 2016, and on a reminder (reminder #1, sent to the other RIA’s of QUT on 12 February 2016). Also Dr. Barbour has not responded. (…..).
Part B of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research ( https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf ) states: “Research misconduct (…) also includes the wilful concealment or facilitation of research misconduct by others.” That’s what is going on over here. Part B of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research states as well: “Repeated or continuing breaches of this Code may also constitute research misconduct”. Please note that there have already been numerous contacts from various parties to persuade Dr. Barbour that she must change her behaviour. Until now without a result. Please remove ASAP Dr. Barbour from QUT because Dr. Barbour is deliberately engaged in a “wilful concealment or facilitation of research misconduct by others.” Please contact Dr. Barbour for the details and please forward to me the response of Dr. Barbour and please don’t hesitate to contact me when there are errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side. Thanks in advance for your co-operation. Best wishes, Klaas van Dijk”

8. “From: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 12:34 PM; Subject: Formal complaint to the Division of Research and Commercialisation of QUT with serious allegations of scientific misconduct commited by Dr Virginia Barbour
Dear reader of this e-mail, I am hereby lodging a formal complaint to the Head of School / Executive Officer of the Division of Research and Commercialisation of QUT ( https://www.qut.edu.au/about/contact/d/division-of-research-and-commercialisation and http://www.resacom.qut.edu.au/redirect-index.html ) with serious allegations of scientific misconduct committed by Dr. Virginia Barbour ( http://staff.qut.edu.au/details?id=barbourg ).

See below [= see above] for the “revelant information” (cf 2.7.4 at http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/D/D_02_07.jsp ). Much backgrounds about the current behaviour of Dr. Babour in this case have also been posted online. See
https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7
https://pubpeer.com/publications/7DA806A8062EF9474F1A53717B9D1D#fb36200
https://pubpeer.com/publications/1C6B56C6600F850C0320D4161278E8#fb43193
https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/join-the-committee-ignore-publication-ethics/
https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/frontiers-christmas-carol/
https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/12/one-problem-with-the-scholarly-publishing-industry/
https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/14/another-controversial-paper-from-fronters
https://pubpeer.com/topics/1/2E91E8916236A6EE03F372E64FBBAF

The contents of these blog posts, and the comments, are an integral part of this formal complaint against Dr. Barbour. This formal complaint against Dr. Barbour is based on item 2.7.4 at http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/D/D_02_07.jsp (and a follow-up after there was no response from any of the RIA’s).

Please remove immediately Dr. Barbour from QUT in case Dr. Barbour is unwilling to send me a rebuttal and in case Dr. Barbour is unwilling to start to work together with me to ensure that the faulty paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warber, a paper which is loaded with fabricated data, and a comment, will be retracted, ASAP and fully in line with the guidelines of COPE.

(…). Thanks in advance for sending me a response in which is stated that my formal complaint was received by the Head of School / Executive Officer of the Division of Research and Commercialisation of QUT in good order. Please don’t hesitate to contact me when there are errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side. Best wishes, Klaas van Dijk”

9. “From: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 12:05 PM; Subject: Formal complaint to TILS of QUT with serious allegations of scientific misconduct commited by Dr Virginia Barbour. Dear reader of this e-mail, I am hereby lodging a formal complaint to the Head of School / Executive Officer of the Division of Technology, Information and Learning Support of QUT ( https://www.qut.edu.au/about/contact/groups/division-of-technology-information-and-learning-support ) with serious allegations of scientific misconduct committed by Dr. Virginia Barbour ( http://staff.qut.edu.au/details?id=barbourg ). [………]. Thanks in advance for sending me a response in which is stated that my formal complaint was received by TILS of QUT in good order. Please don’t hesitate to contact me when there are errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side. Best wishes, Klaas van Dijk”

DISCLAIMER: I am hereby declaring that that this comment was prepared in good faith, that this is also the case for all other 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 texts from my side are 100% honest 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. Please don’t hesitate to contact me when there are errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side.