Please what is your take on Cogent OA?
Comment on Two Predatory Publishers: One Old, One New by Nwugballa
Comment on Two Predatory Publishers: One Old, One New by Jeffrey Beall
Cogent OA is a (relatively new) imprint of Taylor & Frances (Informa). As the name indicates, it’s their open-access publishing arm. It’s not on my list.
Comment on Two Predatory Publishers: One Old, One New by Bell Deen
Pyrex with their offensive and disturbing solicitation for articles.
Comment on Two Predatory Publishers: One Old, One New by Ali
It seems that Scientia Ricerca registered by Indian man
https://www.facebook.com/gagan.chaitanya.5?ref=br_rs
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Jeffrey Beall
Comment on Research by fajar nurjaman
Dear Beall,
I need your explanation about The ARPN Journal of Engineering and Sciences. I know that the ARPN publisher is on your list, but I also know that The ARPN Journal of Engineering and Sciences is on Scimago list (SJR Impact Factor 0.213 – Q3 journal). Thank you
Comment on Two New Absurd OA Journals, Two New OA Mandates by Marco
Price.
Consider the word carefully. If you expect to publish ten papers, the average respectable OA publisher will take 10,000 to 20,000 dollars away from your budget – in just one year. That’s a very large amount of your funding!
Comment on Two Predatory Publishers: One Old, One New by Barbara Kaesmann
Hello Jeffrey,
obviously they wanted to save space in the title:
“Opthalmology and Vision Science
The Ophthalmology and Vision Science journal is a peer-reviewed…”
only the title has the wrong spelling….
But they sure need space, have a look at what this journal covers:
“all aspects of Optometry, Visual science, Pharmacology and drug therapy in eye diseases, Primary and secondary eye care, Ophthalmology Surgical tips and devices, Clinical trials in ophthalmology, Cataract and Refractive surgery, Cornea and external disease, Glaucoma, Ophthalmic pathology, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery, Pediatric ophthalmology, Lasik eye surgery, Vision correction, visual function and quality of life, Retina immunobiology, Retinal imaging, Vitreomacular interface and management, Lamina cribrosa, angles and blebs, Retinal detachment and allied diseases, Hazy vision, Hyphema, Myasthenia gravis, Neuro ophthalmology, Ocular migraines, Oculoplastics and Orbit surgery, Optic neuritis, Photophobia, Pterygium, Retinal Detachment, Retinal vascular occlusion, Sarcoidosis, Strabismus, Uveitis, Watery eyes, Anterior segment surgery, Black eye, Squint eye, Blindness, Coloboma, Cone-rod dystrophy, Corneal ulcer, Dry eye syndrome, Eye and vision development, Blepharitis, Far sightedness, Lazy eye, Myopia, Ocular oncology, Ophthalmic pathology, Ophthalmoplegia, Presbyopia, Retinitis pigmentosa, Scleritis, Usher syndrome, Visual impairment, Other macular disease imaging and surgery, Degenerative eye disease, Cornea surgery refractive, Corneal imaging and topography, Glaucoma genetics, Autoimmune ocular disease and Allergy, Vasculature and Photoreceptors, Cataract surgery, Choroidal Vascular diseases, Function and microstructure of the macula, Uveal Melanoma pathophysiology”
wow….
last remark:
“Double blinded peer review process”
what a pity for a vision and sight journal……
Greetings!
Barbara
Comment on Research by Jeffrey Beall
The authentic impact factors come from Thomson Reuters, not Scimago.
Comment on Two Predatory Publishers: One Old, One New by tekija
That is why all studies in that field are called double masked, not blind.
Comment on Two New Absurd OA Journals, Two New OA Mandates by rehab rahem
excus me can you help me if Academic Publishing House Researcher journal is found in black list or not
Comment on Two New Absurd OA Journals, Two New OA Mandates by Jeffrey Beall
I am confused about which publisher you mean. Can you send a link? Thanks.
Comment on Two New Absurd OA Journals, Two New OA Mandates by Michel
May be he is confirming about the Academic Research Publishing Group.
Comment on Two New Absurd OA Journals, Two New OA Mandates by drrehabalshemary
Academic Publishing House Researcher Official web-site: http://www.aphr.ru/eng/mainpage.html 26/2 Konstitutcii, Office 6, Sochi 354000, Russian Federation
2016-04-16 2:02 GMT+03:00 Scholarly Open Access :
> Jeffrey Beall commented: “I am confused about which publisher you mean. > Can you send a link? Thanks.” >
Comment on Two New Absurd OA Journals, Two New OA Mandates by Jeffrey Beall
Thank you. This publisher has a few problems, but it is not on my list at this time.
Comment on Appeals by Dr. Kannan
Beall, your reply reflects how strong analytical skills you have. Without knowing someone’s background your rude response shows the level of arrogance you have. I suspect your vested interests behind maligning reputed journals by constructing such baseless list.
Comment on Two New Absurd OA Journals, Two New OA Mandates by Daryl Grenz
What does price or OA publishers have to do with institutional open access policies? Part of the point of institutional open access is for researchers and organizations to be able to provide more access to their research without having to pay publishers additional fees.
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
I have not heard of the second journal (the software journal). Can you tell me why you think it should be on the list? Thanks, I’ll have a look at it.
Comment on Flawed Article in Canadian Library Science Journal by Jeffrey Beall
I disagree. The open-access movement is full of people who suppress discourse, especially discourse about the weaknesses of open-access publishing itself. My blog is one of the few places on the internet that provides critical thinking about the weaknesses of OA.
There are many that do indeed police thought on OA, attacking those who dare to express thoughts and ideas that run counter to hackneyed OA rhetoric.
I find your comment angry and unprofessional. Please take your anger somewhere else. I am going to continue my work here.
Comment on Appeals by guest
ahh.., because both of them have identical features, i.e. use same domain .us, same web structure, same physical address contact, etc. However, both of them also have relative long review process (take months up to about one year through “Manuscript submitted” and “accepted” information on published papers). I think the review process is good.