it appears they have removed the name of their “editor-in-chief” from their website – karl heinz is nowhere to be found.
in january “he” was still listed
btw. karl-heinz is a german first name
Comment on Two Turkish Journals with a Fake, “German” Editor by Bert
↧
↧
Comment on An Open-Access Publisher You Can See Through: Pyrex Journals by Marvin the Martian
To be fair, my partner started a serious journal while still a grad student, and hence was founding editor. So no PhD needed is OK in some contexts (the journal was and is specifically aimed as publishing outlet for postgraduate researchers in social sciences).
↧
Comment on Another Article about Plagiarism — That Contains Plagiarism by Steve Clancy
Jeffrey, thanks for the work you do in this area. Most appreciated by the rest of us is in the library community. I notice in this article that this journal IS included in the Directory of Open Access Journals.
This is troubling especially given their claim that theirs is a “… is a service that indexes high quality, peer reviewed Open Access research journals …”
I curious as to your opinion of DOAJ in general. Do they do any vetting of the titles they include?
Thanks!
↧
Comment on Another Article about Plagiarism — That Contains Plagiarism by Jeffrey Beall
Thanks, after it got caught badly in the 2013 <em>Science</em> sting (45% of a sample of DOAJ journals accepted a flawed scientific manuscript for publication), the directory tightened its criteria. They now rely on volunteers to help vet journals seeking inclusion. There is some overlap between DOAJ and my lists. DOAJ has focused too much on OA ideology and too little on functioning as a reliable directory. Its value as a journal whitelist is marginal.
↧
Comment on One Problem with the Scholarly Publishing Industry by Klaas van Dijk
Jeffrey Beall wrote: “One main problem with scholarly publishing may be that some of its top editorial employees are former university researchers or frustrated clinicians. They seemed to have, for one reason or another, dropped out from the research enterprise. (…) Don’t some seem to think they know scholarly publishing only because they worked in a lab and published a couple papers? How did they get accepted so eagerly, then, into the commercial sector? (….) They proclaim their expertise in the scholarly publishing enterprise, but rarely do they emphasize a previous, incomplete career in the enterprise of science. (…) Do they really help that much in the enterprise of communication and sharing, or do they end up primarily helping themselves? You’d have to conclude the outcome for yourself.”
I have extensive experiences with a high-ranked editorial employee of the mainsteam open-access publisher PLOS. The name of this employee is Iratxe Puebla, currently the Managing Editor for the mega-journal PLOS ONE. My experiences until now with Iratxe Puebla are bad. This is a mild judgement. I therefore hold the opinion that the above quote of Jeffrey Beall fits very well with the behaviour until now of Iratxe Puebla.
There is for example no evidence that Iratxe Puebla has a PhD and/or an MD, although one of her colleagues at PLOS indicated in an e-mail to me the opposite. It is also unclear how much papers Iratxe Puebla has published. Pubmed reveals only one paper which is authored by a person with the name Iratxe Puebla. Iratxe Puebla does not open e-mails from my side, so I am unable to communicate with her (about this topic). Queries to PLOS about this topic remained unanswered. Other searches revealed some papers with the name Iratxe Puebla, but I am unsure if all papers with the name Iratxe Puebla refer to the same person.
I am also already waiting 257 days on the correspondence of Iratxe Puebla with another publisher about a faulty paper which is loaded with fabricated data. Numerous requests to publisher PLOS were responded by numerous auto-replies. That’s all. It is no problem at all for me to write a separate paper about all the auto-responses I have until now received from publisher PLOS about these issues with their employee Iratxe Puebla.
This very persistant non-response of Iratxe Puebla underlines my statement that Iratxe Puebla has a very bad track record when it comes to maintain and promote a high level of research integrity. This became for example also evident when I was heavily turned down by her when I told her that I was expecting that she always will work for the full 100% according to the VSNU guidelines (“The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice, Principles of good academic teaching and research”, 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 ).
A query in the autumn of 2015 to publisher PLOS to provide me firm evidence (for example papers in peer-reviewed journals) that Iratxe Puebla ‘has extensive experiences in the field of publication ethics’ remained unanswered until now. I was unable to find this evidence and I have therefore concluded that there is until now no evidence for the statement: ‘Iratxe Puebla has extensive experiences in the field of publication ethics’.
Iratxe Puebla joined COPE, the Committee of Publication Ethics. I tend to think that science journalist Leonid Scheider is correct with his statement about COPE (“Join the Committee, ignore Publication Ethics”), when it comes to my experiences until now with Iratxe Puebla (see https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/join-the-committee-ignore-publication-ethics/ ).
It is not disclosed on the website of PLOS that Iratxe Puebla ( https://www.plos.org/staff/iratxe-puebla/ ) has a side-job as consultant for COPE. It was until recently also not disclosed on the website of COPE that there were ties between Iratxe Puebla and COPE (a search for Iratxe and a search for Puebla never provided hits). Publisher PLOS has also never responded on a query about the financial ties between COPE, the journals of publisher PLOS (all are member of PLOS, and thus all must pay an annual memberships fee) and (the money which is paid to) consultant Iratxe Puebla. COPE has sent me a less than helpful message when I asked the same questions to COPE.
Jeffrey Beall wrote on https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/14/another-controversial-paper-from-fronters/ “COPE is experiencing problems that are affecting its credibility. Some believe that it has succumbed to cronyism, (…)”.
Dr. Virginia Barbour, the current chair of COPE, was until around one year ago, a high-ranked employee of publisher PLOS. She is thus a former colleague of Iratxe Puebla. Dr. Barbour also does not open e-mails from my side, and the same is the case for all others who are affilated to COPE.
I am hereby inviting Iratxe Puebla to start in public, so over here, a scientific dialogue with me about the faulty paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warber, and tell me, and the other readers of this blog post, and in plain language, if she agrees with me, and with all of my allies, that this 2013-paper is loaded with fabricated data, which implies that it must be retracted, together with a 2015-comment, ASAP, and fully in line with the guidelines of COPE.
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. 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.
↧
↧
Comment on Two Turkish Journals with a Fake, “German” Editor by Yue Zhang
when i checked the journal ISSN, it seems valid. also, the paper quality seems ok, i upload some published papers to ithenticate, all of them are original. and i did not recognise any german name. when checked the editors, they are all from different universities from the world and nearly all of them dr. i think you were in hurry to evaluate these journals. i mean i do not agree your suppose.
↧
Comment on Two Turkish Journals with a Fake, “German” Editor by MC
Probably the same Karl-Heinz who appeared on Sprockets, East Germany’s Most Disturbing Home Videos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprockets_(Saturday_Night_Live)
↧
Comment on A New Publisher to Watch Out for: Ology Science by Marcus Muench
The opening line of “Greetings for the day!” seems to be popping up more and more in my inbox. I delete most as fast as they come, but the view left in my trash folder are from OMICS, Austin Publishing Group and one for the International Journal of Current Medical Science at http://journalijcmes.com – not sure who the publisher is.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Khalid EL BAIRI
Dear Beall, what do you think about this journal : http://www.ijacademicstudies.com/
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
I think the <em>International Journal of Academic Studies</em> (IJAS) is a low-quality and deceptive journal.
↧
Comment on Two Turkish Journals with a Fake, “German” Editor by David Taylor
You miss the important point. Journals that offer a 5-day period of ‘peer review’ do not really put submissions through any meaningful review at all, and exist only to make money on author fees. That does not mean that all submissions are bad — every one of the articles they publish could be excellent — but it is much more likely that poor research and weak articles will be published when the “peer review” is so blatantly a fiction.
↧
Comment on Another Article Broker from China by Jeffrey Beall
I think you need a new keyboard.
↧
Comment on Two Turkish Journals with a Fake, “German” Editor by Ljubomir Jacic
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Naci_Kalkan2
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_happen_if_WE_ALL_consult_Bealls_list_of_predatory_journals_and_refrain_from_the_possible_probable_or_potential_predators
Dear Jeffry, please visit the thread at Researchgate by Miranda Yeoh.
Best,
Ljubomir
↧
↧
Comment on Two Turkish Journals with a Fake, “German” Editor by Yue Zhang
maybe you were right, but you see only share pics. here. when i checked the journal deeply, they do not say anything guaranteed 5 day publication. in FAqs they said: How much does time is needed to publish the proceedings?
JMESS type setting teams shall require a minimum of 15 days (from the date of submission of the proceedings’ papers) to complete the publication process in online formats.
so if you submit a paper on 25th of month you have to wait minimum next month for publication.
by the way, in my opinion if reviews completed within1-5 days, the publication should be publish asap, there is no sense to wait 1 year for publication.
↧
Comment on Two Turkish Journals with a Fake, “German” Editor by Eric Grant
in journal, it says minimum 15 days required for publication.and also, journal wanted 15 dollar for accepted paper publication last year, nothing at all when compare the elsevier or any other sci journal, they wants around 2000 dollar from me for open access.
↧
Comment on Another Article Broker from China by Tudor Eynon
Sorry pal, Mr. A or whatever you call yourself. Jeffrey is doing one of the most important jobs in Academia. Jeffrey is scrupulously fair and academic. I think you must have ‘skin in the game’?
Jeffrey’s work actually saves lives. Did you ever think of the cases when junk anti vaxx and other stuff gets into what people think of as ‘proper’ medical journals? There are other examples.
↧
Comment on Business Deans Endorse Resolution Regarding Predatory Journals by winfriedspeters
Dear Jeffrey Beall,
this post provides an important supporting source for my struggle to convince my colleagues that turning a blind eye on liers and jerks is not tolerance but academic suicide in slowmo.
I have followed your blog for three years or so. Your postings present essential, up-to-date information for those of us who are not willing to sit on a fence during the ongoing full-scale attack on academic integrity. We cannot thank you enough.
best wishes,
Dr. Winfried S. Peters
Associate Professor of Biology
Indiana/Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW)
↧
↧
Comment on Business Deans Endorse Resolution Regarding Predatory Journals by Jeffrey Beall
Thank you! I greatly appreciate this!
↧
Comment on Two Turkish Journals with a Fake, “German” Editor by Dan Riley
Looking at three papers in vol 1 no. 1 of JMESS, the first I looked at showed no signs of competent editing, the second was for a perpetual motion machine, and the third was clearly plagiarized. Yep, real quality journal there…
↧
Comment on Business Deans Endorse Resolution Regarding Predatory Journals by rehab rahem
Good day
Really your efforts in helping us there is nothing that can be given to you against which I do not know you take the amount of money against which but whatever gives you the very little for the advices that you gave it , but my university( baghdad university) has accept a set of Journals that you put it in blacklisted , I do not know Is it possible that ,and what is the reason for this list to change and it is exit of some Journals in the following example International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), Der Pharma Chemica and Journal of Pharma and Bio Sciences
↧
