Thanks for the idea Nils. Is publication posted there still possible to publish elsewhere? This sentence got me sort of confused since it says both yes and no: “Submitters must grant arXiv.org a non-exclusive and irrevocable license to distribute or certify that the work is available under another license that conveys these rights” so that means I cannot publish then in a journal that wants exclusive rights, such as the one I just published in with link yet to come… Do I understand this right?
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by Be Healthy
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
Publishing in such journals can harm one’s career.
Some open-access journals are mere phishing operations that sell credit card data gathered from article fee payments.
Some publishers charge authors to publish their papers, and they they disappear from the internet a year or two later, and the articles are all unpublished.
et cetera.
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Yann Le Corff
Thank you very much for the warning!
↧
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by Be Healthy
Great question tekija. There are several reasons why there is no “competing and conflict of interest” so let me give you 2 very important ones here. Not sure if you ever published before and read what “competing and conflict of interest” means but it is defined as getting paid by a 3rd party in order to show that the product (or service) you discovered and write about was “paid for” by them. Thus
1) https://stantonmigraineprotocol.com opened its doors in January 2016, way after the articles were submitted, and so I NOW earn money but the research was done long before that and the were even published before my first paying client so I see no conflict of interest anywhere. My research and even writing the papers had been done well over a year before https://stantonmigraineprotocol.com was opened. The Stanton Migraine Protocol was also trademarked after all research, since before the research I had no idea what would be in it. Makes sense?
2) I had no 3rd party involved during the research at all; no one paid for my research. I did. Neither the research nor my book (which you have not yet mentioned) or my service promotes any medicines, supplements, or products that others or I may have financial gain from them. I received no funds from external sources at all during my research. If you read the research papers, they describe that all preliminary research was done in several migraine groups and then I opened my migraine group (totally free) from which the data was used to write my articles. Participation in the group is free (to this day) and the help migraineurs get is also free (even now). I analyze every single person who joins and I provide guidance to them free. There is no need for anyone to sign up at https://stantonmigraineprotocol.com for services for a fee, except if they wish total privacy and anonymity. For that I do charge and that is my salary.
It is important to mention that scientists generally get salaries as direct contribution to their research from the institution they work for and that still does not mean “competing and conflict of interest” since that is their earnings as a result of doing their work. In my case, I am self-employed and received no funds from anyone for my research, which at that time was not yet supported by earnings from https://stantonmigraineprotocol.com since that page did not yet exist.
If I received extra money from big pharma, for example, as many researchers do, to run a clinical trial or use the drug in question as off label, that would be one of many examples of “competing and conflict of interest”. I had none of that.
Now, I already know your next question: the book. What about the royalties I am earning about the selling of my book? The answer: I don’t. I actually paid for the book to be published in order to retain the copyright and to be able to dictate to have the book with larger letters and more space between lines so a migraineur can actually read it–I published many books before by official publishers, like Elgar and others, and I had no say in how much they are selling it for, what the book looks like and lost the copyright as well.
It will take many years to even recover my cost of having published the book because I also set the price low–most migraineurs lost their jobs and cannot afford to pay much. If a reseller sells the book (e-book or paperback) at full price, I would be getting about a dollar for the e-book and somewhat less for the paperback. As it happens the e-book full price is $3.99 and if you look at amazon, it sells there for $3.03 so I am getting a split of the 3 cents profit between the publisher and me. Self-publishing a book is pretty expensive.
As you can see, the entire research so far cost me more than I will ever be able to recoup also because I had no earnings at all for several years while I was conducting the research.
I hope this answers your question.
Angela
↧
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by Be Healthy
Thanks Nil. Very useful advice. I will look into publishing with pre-print servers. I never thought about that. It is definitely good for the exposure!
↧
↧
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by Be Healthy
I totally agree wkdawson. I have an example for you that just came in the email today for me that totally supports your argument and made me laugh.
I wrote an article which later was invited to be published (I did not submit) by a most well respected journal in a special edition that was filled with the most famous economists at the time: “Review Francaise d’Economie”, translated to French. You can find my article (in French) here: http://www.persee.fr/doc/rfeco_0769-0479_2009_num_23_4_1708 and in English in an economic pre-pub repository here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1113226 it is a rather fiery article (my undergrad is in math so there is a bit of math in it but minimal).
As you can see, the article is published with major names, some of which are Nobel Prize candidates in economics, such as Ariel Rubinstein (he received the Bruno Prize (2000), the Israel Prize for economics (2002), the Nemmers Prize in Economics (2004), the EMET Prize (2006), and the Rothschild Prize (2010)).
The special edition that was pulled together to discuss neuroeconomics is here: http://www.persee.fr/issue/rfeco_0769-0479_2009_num_23_4?sectionId=rfeco_0769-0479_2009_num_23_4_1708 and you see only invited papers by extremely well-known and famous scholars so my paper being among them is an honor and I certainly expected it to be a publication “help” rather than hindrance.
I looked in Scopus a few weeks ago to see if my publications were in there and this was missing so I wanted to add it. I received an email response today (partial letter here):
“Thank you for your e-mail regarding the article entitled: “Neuroeconomics: A Critique of ‘Neuroeconomics: A Critical Reconsiderations”… Please be advised that the journal in which your article was published is not indexed in Scopus, therefore your paper cannot be added to our database. For more details on the Scopus Content.”
Voila! A journal special edition with Nobel candidates is “not good enough” to be indexed in Scopus. Really?
So what have I got to say now regarding your note on Einstein: well said.
While many journals are certainly predatory and junk, many are just impossible to reach because their noses are held so high; yet they withdraw publications for error continuously! I am not saying that we should drop everything and publish in junk journals at all. What I am saying is that if even a super journal is considered to be junk by the American indexing method, how can we possibly be sure that a journal, like Science or Nature or Cell or similar is not equivalently junk?
I forgot the name of a famous scientist who just recently commented that he refuses to publish anything in these three famous “best” journals because they publish junk science.
So where does one publish? And does it really matter where? If Einstein lived today, he could not publish anything anywhere.
Angela
↧
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by rehab rahem
Happy day
Is this magazine in the black list “EXCLI Journal” excli@ifado.de“
↧
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by tekija
I appreciate your kind reply. Regarding your two points:
As an author, I’ve come to believe that the deiniton of conflict of interest is a lot broader. Furthermore as its name implies, it is a simple informative declaration rather than anything that would be derogatory, in order to let readers know about any potential links of the author rather than let them find out themselves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
The journal in question seems to agree and recommends NIH guidelines as regards declaring potential interests:
http://www.imedpub.com/guidelines-for-authors.php
Regarding timelines, Whois tells that your web site stantonmigraineprotocol.com actually was registered and became functional in late April, 2015.
http://who.is/whois/stantonmigraineprotocol.com
The Wayback Machine has cached versions of it that are essentially the same as today as regards references to the book and the trademarked migraine protocol from June 1, 2015, onward.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150515000000*/https://stantonmigraineprotocol.com/
The paper that we were discussing was accepted for publication in November 23, 2015, well after the events above.
If I am not mistaken, this is significantly different from the timeline that you put forward, above?
↧
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by Jeffrey Beall
No.
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals by Danladi Chiroma Husaini
How did you get spammed by that journal?
Could you please shed more light because I just sent an article to the journal before checking these reviews. Awaiting your prompts response. Thanks
↧
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by Be Healthy
Tekija,
The domain name registration was on 4/24/2015 to be precise and my first submission to the first journal, according to my email records, of the migraine article was on 4/9/2015 followed by a rejection received on the 13th of April. On that same day I submitted it to another journal and so forth all the way through November. So what you see is the final journal, which accepted in November. By then all research was stopped for a year. There is no conflict of interest anywhere.
The date of acceptance to the final journal, therefore, is not very meaningful and you should not be making any judgment.
I welcome questions that I can answer before you form an opinion based on incorrect facts and appear to make my work unethical, which it is not. Please ask so you can learn the facts.
Thanks,
Angela
↧
Comment on The TR Master Journal List is not a Journal Whitelist by Lucas Toutloff
You should check http://www.journalwhitelist.com
↧
Comment on Sci-Hub Will Increase Academic Plagiarism by OffHours
“It’s clear that Sci-Hub’s real objective is not to make science more accessible but to hurt Elsevier…”
I assume this statement doesn’t take into account that Sci-Hub is a Russia-run project, in a Russian mentality scientific literature should be accessible to everyone at low or no price at all; the notion of intellectual property is alien and not really respected in any realm of life; the business model of scientific publishing is more like that of open-access, i.e. the financial burden is on the author, not on his readers.
The disadvantage of the Russian model as for me personally is that I try not to read anything written in Russian, because I never know who is the real author of any paper and I tend to believe that every paper is more likely to be a plagiarism than a genuine research (I do not think that everything is rosy in this regard in western subscription publishing, just hope it is somewhat better…) So, isn’t that handy for large massess of “young unexperienced (ha!) scientists from developing countries” to get for free supposedly quality papers from respected Western peer-reviewed subcription academic journals? (Western retired academics and qualified practitioners with no institutional access to subscription papers may be among beneficiaries as well). I doubt that any user of the likes of Sci-Hub sees this as a wrongdoing, rather a kind of just redistribution of intellectual wealth from greedy Western publishers.
↧
↧
Comment on Sci-Hub Will Increase Academic Plagiarism by Frank Lu
“Plagiarists already exploit open-access repositories of theses and dissertations in the same way. They grab newly-published theses and create scholarly articles out of them, quickly submitting the articles to scholarly journals.” A colleague fell victim when his student’s work was copied by some unscrupulous “researchers” almost verbatim for a junky OA journal. Not worth pursuing legal remedy at all.
↧
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by Marco
The story about Einstein and Physical Review is actually quite interesting, because a reconstruction of the affair suggests that the one reviewer for Einstein’s paper actually correctly pointed out that the paper was wrong(!). And despite Einstein’s angry comment, it also seems he later published the paper with a radically different conclusion from the reviewed paper
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/58/9/10.1063/1.2117822
↧
Comment on Sci-Hub Will Increase Academic Plagiarism by OffHours
Robert Dettman, it’s very understabdable that authors want their research to be of use, visible and disseminated as much as possible. However I cannot help but would like to slightly reiterate Susan Ariew’s points: if you care about levelling of the international scientific playing field, why don’t you publish open access? So that everyone can legally access your paper without exposing their PC to, say, a danger of malware from a pirate resource? If you agreed to be published by an established subscription publisher, you had agreed to their terms and conditions, including to benefit from an added value of their reputation, their publishing services, the more experienced and prominent in your field reviewers, etc. Don’t you think that once established publishers are gone because they cannot get readers to pay through the nose for these added value features, you will have the same publishing landscape as, for instance, an imaginary Iranian scientist currently has?
↧
Comment on Sci-Hub Will Increase Academic Plagiarism by dzrlib
re: Open-access advocates target Elsevier much like minimum-wage zealots target McDonalds. Every social movement needs a successful enemy, a contrived bad guy.
I am not so sure Elsevier is a contrived “bad guy’ in the sense that their cost/page and cost/article is far in excess of comparable costs for scholarly society journals. I can’t speak for McDonalds, but the Walton family fortune and the fact that many of their workers are eligible for food stamps suggets a wage deficiency (which I understand is in the process of being raised).
↧
↧
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by Be Healthy
I agree. I also found, over the many years of my work and publishing (and being a reviewer), that in order to be a “good” reviewer one needs to actually “understand” the thing under review. If the thought is over the head of the reviewer, Peter Principle is reached and the article, no matter how good, cannot pass. This is likely what prevented Einstein from succeeding (at the start at least) and what keeps many today from being able to publish revolutionary ideas.
It is also worthy to note here that the US is way ahead in this respect from other countries! Some of the countries where I worked in the past, I found that advancing science meant to add an extra dot to the end of the sentence of what already existed. In countries like that science is based on current understanding of what, in medicine, we call “evidence based” and which thwarts any new scientific application since everything must exist and be in evidence in order to become accepted and that is a contradiction to being able to use anything new and yet unknown.
At least the US is not THAT bad wkdawson but it is likely field specific as well. :)
Angela
↧
Comment on New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International by Be Healthy
Than you! :) Yep! That’s the one! And I agree with him!
↧
Comment on Another Predatory Conference Organizer from Asia: Academic Fora by M. LaRocco
I cannot overstate the valuable service that Jeffrey Beall provides to scientists regarding predatory journals and (now) conferences. But we as scientists have to take some responsibility for allowing this scam industry to take root. Whether out of academic desperation or professional vanity please stop allowing these hucksters to take advantage of our profession. I get at least 20 emails a week inviting me to publish or participate in some pseudoscientific endeavor. Most go to my junk mail folder and the rest are so riddled with specious content as to throw up a dozen red flags. All of us should be well grounded in scientific organizations specific to our discipline and recognized by our peers. Steer clear of any others.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
