Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Scholarly Open Access
Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on LIST OF INDIVIDUAL JOURNALS by Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too) |

0
0

[...] Beall, a research librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, has developed his own blacklist of what he calls “predatory open-access journals.” There were 20 publishers on his list in 2010, [...]


Comment on New publisher: Scientific & Academic Publishing by Good Morning, idiot (WAS: The latest messages from editorial department) | Finn Årup Nielsen's blog

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by janerikfrantsvag

0
0

I think we need to keep a number of thoughts apart here, in order to make this a sensible discussion. The discussion about marketing has no relevance to the question raised about why aren’t we crying out about Hindawi’s extremely high profit margins. (Feel free to complain about Hindawi’s marketing practices, but why here?)

Hindawi’s profit margins are high by anyone’s standards, far higher than those of Elsevier. Some points: We should not lament publishers creating profits for themselves, our concern should be how they create margins and in what kind of market.

Elsevier create profits by reducing access to scientific content, Hindawi by enabling such access.

Elsevier mostly operate in a marked characterized by monopolistic competition, creating super-profits. Hindawi operate in a more competitive market, where the chances of super-profits are much smaller.

The reason Hindawi can make such huge profits, is the pricing of Elsevier and others in the non-competitive market. And Hindawi’s margins can be threatened by new entrants in the market; this is not a major risk for Elsevier. The risk for Elsevier lies in a transition to OA, which is more competitive and threatens profit margins.

We should bear in mind that Hindawi’s income per article is smaller than Elsevier’s profit per article.

Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Larsen

0
0

“Self-publishing, another option, is quite expensive since you have to pay for it to be done, whereas VDM does the whole thing for free. Those seem to be the main issues.”

If you check in Amazon, you will see that heir books sell at an extortionate price, something like 100 dollars on average, whereas other self-published books (in normal services where you have to pay a fee) sell for like a tenthj of the price. Basically, no one will buy your book and you are taking part in a scam. So, yes, you are happy with that, go ahead.

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by emperor

0
0

I am also receiving unsolicited mails by Hindawi and there is no apparent way to unsubscribe. In my country it is illegal to not provide an easy way to opt-out.
As a serious business they should make sure their advertisement does not violate the laws of the country of the receiver.

Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Larsen

0
0

You can always make your work available online on a research repository. Referencing that in your cv might be even better that including a book “published” by a bogus academic publishing house such as Lambert.
And yes, it’s not free, but I would rather pay and publish with Acron or even Lulu than be associated with these fradusters.

Comment on Scholarly Journals for Winos by Noëlle Lidvan

0
0

Thanks to Jeffrey for his important work ! I recently received spam from Wyno, and I was really surprised to see that the editorial board includes no Professor, and no name you can really consider as a well-known specialist in a specific domain. Moreover, when you track the CV and publications of these people, you can’t find convincing informations.
Just look at the differences with Frontiers (I dont’ claim that Frontiers is the best Open Access Journal, but it’s a good basis for comparison).
I’m not saying that new publishers cannot develop, but that clear methods can be used for that. And these methods are quite simple, and well known by any member of the scientific community : relying on academic networks to advertize, transmitting information directly to universities and research centers, etc.

Comment on LIST OF INDIVIDUAL JOURNALS by Pseudo-Academic Publishing, Astroturfing, and Google Scholar | UnofficialFactChecker

0
0

[...] Beall, a research librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, has developed his own blacklist of what he calls “predatory open-access journals.” He warns that their numbers are [...]


Comment on LIST OF INDIVIDUAL JOURNALS by Pseudo-Academic Publishing, Astroturfing, and Google Scholar | The Harold Lounge

0
0

[...] Beall, a research librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, has developed his own blacklist of what he calls “predatory open-access journals.” He warns that their numbers are [...]

Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by dzrlib

0
0

Might the fact that “Hindawi’s income per article is smaller than Elsevier’s” be due to the fact that they don’t provide the same level of editorial review. As an aside, I think a much more important comparison would be with responsible independent society publishers, such as the Am. Phys. Soc.

Comment on Research by ashley

0
0

Hi All,

I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the collection of journals “acedemic Journals”:

http://www.academicjournals.org

i am a graduate student and fear that i may have made a mistake submitting an article to one of the biology journals run by this organization. has anyone heard bad things about this organization?

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by DotBlot

Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by ukthesis

0
0

If you read my mail, I say that because of the high price of these VDM books, there are unlikely to be any substantial sales. I think that some libraries or archives might take some, in part because they get a discount. I am not going myself with VDM since I hope that at some future time I “might” be able to interest a mainstream publisher. However, so far as I know, VDM are NOT frausters, as you claim. They have been investigated, have been active for quite some time in different countries and they operate legally – fraudsters do not. They actually offer a legal service. See the Wikipedia entry on their operations. (By the same token, most books published by academic presses don’t sell many copies of their books either, and I should know, but that doesn’t make them a scam either.) What IS true is that you need to research them and know the issues before you get involved, and VDM won’t tell you the downsides, for obvious commercial reasons. So if you get involved, make sure you know the alternatives, that’s the best advice.

Comment on Will Article Promotion Companies Make Article-Level Metrics Obsolete ? by Mike Taylor

0
0

Since APC already stands for Article Processing Charge, wouldn’t it be better to make up a different name for these companies?

Comment on LIST OF INDIVIDUAL JOURNALS by Jornais perigosos - você precisa ler! » Blog do Prof. Palazzo

0
0

[...] Full list and post [...]


Comment on Will Article Promotion Companies Make Article-Level Metrics Obsolete ? by Yurii Chinenov

0
0

I don’t think it is important that much, not at least at the level of academic evaluations. We tend to read these articles rather than just blindly accept numbers associated with them as a measure of, well, whatever they purport to measure. I cannot, however, guarantee the same when it comes to regulatory or policy evaluations, let alone mass media/general public.

Comment on Report Details Predatory Practices of Two Bosnian Journals by Ljiljana Vučković-Dekić

0
0

What a nonsense! The arguments of Mensura Kudumović in her defense of this predatory journal are completely irelevant – political, not scientific.

Comment on Will Article Promotion Companies Make Article-Level Metrics Obsolete ? by Roddy MacLeod

0
0

I note that there is a ‘Not Found’ on their page http://www.educationalresearches.com/academic-journals/ so it looks as if their website is not well organised.

Of course, researchers don’t need to pay to make their papers visible. A completely free service for individuals, which I am involved with, features the very latest content from 21,700 scholarly journals from 1,700 different publishers. Of the 21,700 journals, 5,500 are Open Access (and we try to weed out the predatory ones). JournalTOCs http://www.journaltocs.ac.uk/index.php where you can view the latest Tables of Contents, or Follow journals of interest and also elect to receive email TOC alerts.

Registration to receive alerts etc is also free.

Maintenance costs for JournalTOCs are met by the premium service http://www.journaltocs.ac.uk/customise.php which is aimed at institutions.

Tens of thousands of individual researchers make use of this service every month. More details about JournalTOCs on my blog entry at http://roddymacleod.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/journaltocs-current-awareness-service-for-researchers-now-contains-the-latest-tables-of-contents-of-over-20000-journals/

The JournalTOCs service ingests the RSS TOC feeds from journals and presents the aggregation in an easy to use interface.

Comment on Will Article Promotion Companies Make Article-Level Metrics Obsolete ? by David Solomon

0
0

This is a problem but not surprising. You see it with every high stakes assessment situation. The higher the stakes, the more people will try to cheat and game the measure whether it is administrators and teachers manipulating test student standardized test scores or journal editors/publishers playing citation games to increase their impact factor. It’s an arms race between those trying to game the measure and those trying to keep it valid.

Comment on Will Article Promotion Companies Make Article-Level Metrics Obsolete ? by Yet Another SPAM Email to Watch Out For. . . | Scholarly Communication at Mason

0
0

[...] Will Article Promotion Companies Make Article-Level Metrics Obsolete ? [...]

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images