- RSS Channel Showcase 5869917
- RSS Channel Showcase 4529689
- RSS Channel Showcase 9412007
- RSS Channel Showcase 5639476
Articles on this Page
- 07/05/16--11:56: _Comment on Predator...
- 07/05/16--14:31: _Comment on Proposed...
- 07/05/16--16:10: _Comment on New Publ...
- 07/05/16--22:30: _Comment on Proposed...
- 07/05/16--23:38: _Comment on Global A...
- 07/06/16--01:19: _Comment on A French...
- 07/06/16--05:22: _Comment on OMICS In...
- 07/06/16--06:51: _Comment on Two New ...
- 07/06/16--09:00: _Comment on Question...
- 07/06/16--09:27: _Comment on Proposed...
- 07/06/16--09:27: _Comment on Appeals ...
- 07/06/16--09:55: _Comment on OMICS In...
- 07/06/16--09:58: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 07/07/16--09:34: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 07/07/16--09:36: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 07/07/16--09:38: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 07/07/16--09:44: _Comment on Question...
- 07/07/16--09:47: _Comment on More Rub...
- 07/07/16--10:41: _Comment on Research...
- 07/07/16--11:38: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 07/05/16--11:56: Comment on Predatory Publishing News by Jeffrey Beall
- 07/06/16--09:27: Comment on Appeals by Fake Journals
- 07/06/16--09:55: Comment on OMICS International Totally Sucks by Ghazal
- 07/06/16--09:58: Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Deepak
- 07/07/16--09:47: Comment on More Rubbish from Hyderabad: Peertechz by From Morocco
- 07/07/16--10:41: Comment on Research by Jan Nyssen
The <em>Journal of Parasitology and Vector Biology</em> is published by the Nigerian publisher called Academic Journals. I have this publisher included on my list. I recommend that you find a journal from a stronger publisher than this one for your work.
Understood - agreeing to disagree on the iafor case. To me, the above criteria is important for highlighting questionable organizers and those that attempt to build legitimacy without substance. The obvious fraudulent organisers are easy to ignore.
Obscuring information about the company, a peer review system documented accepting SCIgen papers, unusually high conference fees, overly broad scope, duplicated conferences around the world, virtual presentations that clearly do not make up part of a wider discussion, charging additional fees for conference dinners. These are the factors that point me to state my belief in this conference organizer being predatory.
All that stated - I agree that a truly in-depth investigation would be beneficial - contacting each partnered institution and determining whether the partnerships are genuine, contacting the academic board members to see if they volunteer their time to this group. After all, conferences with a well established history of being fraudulent (WASET, for example) employ the same tactic.
Time for that pina colada, maybe?
These journals don't even try. I just looked through one of their issues and one published paper was a 3 page Wikipedia article. Quite literally. The text is more or less lifted from a relevant Wikipedia article.
I have attended an IAFOR conference and I would definitely identify it as a predatory, money-making scheme. Since attending I have advised colleagues to not attend and they seem to be gaining a worse reputation, which is well deserved. They seem to meet each of the criteria listed above.
The conference was very expensive -- about $550 US for a three day conference. This included basically nothing but a programme and a pen. No meals or lunches were included, just coffee breaks with a few cheap plastic-wrapped cookies. I received many emails asking me to register for the overpriced tours and dinner.
The conference was advertised as having more than 300 people attending, at the plenary session about 20 people showed up. The presentations were even more poorly attended, sometimes only five people, someones one or two. (I felt very sorry for the people who came across the world to present to an empty room) As the conference progressed, fewer and fewer people stuck around. Often times the presenters were not even there.
It was also not a great networking opportunity. They market their conferences as "interdisciplinary" but they are really just squashing together as many fields as possible to get more registrations. I didn't meet anyone working specifically in my field. It isn't clear before you attend how many conferences will be held concurrently. As you can see on the website, from July 11 to 14, they will be holding FOUR conferences at the same time in the same venue -- on cultural studies, literature and librarianship, media, communication and film, and arts and humanities. http://iafor.org/conferences/
And the conferences just seem like copy and paste jobs regardless of the year or country.
The keynote and feature speakers were not at all related to my field of study, which was disappointing, and didn't seem to have much of an academic record. Many of the presenters at the conference had unfortunately very poor research to present, many also had very poor English skills. It seems like IAFOR markets their conferences predominately to developing countries, many attendees were from Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Nigeria etc. This is unfortunate given how expensive the conference is and how little is provided in terms of networking, learning opportunities, or even a nice conference experience.
IAFOR does accept virtual presentations. One attendee I spoke with said her colleague wasn't required to do a video or anything for this "virtual" presentation, just send them $350.
It's a terrible publishing opportunity also. Once I reviewed the conference proceedings after attending, I chose not to include my work. The proceedings were basically unreadable, filled with grammar and spelling mistakes and papers that read like undergraduate work. I also learned that the journal editors just choose a few of the papers from the proceedings to publish in the journal. There is no peer review of the papers. (Also, they apparently have "research institutes" which haven't had any research published-- http://iafor.org/research/iafor-japan-research-institute/)
The IAFOR CEO attended the plenary session and discussed how IAFOR is a non-profit and gave a spiel about connecting the world through interdisciplinary research. But this clearly is a money-making enterprise and NOT a non profit. (The CEO seemed quite arrogant and wouldn't chat with any of the attendees, rather took off after that speech).
Leading up to the conference, it was difficult to get in contact with the IAFOR office, there is no phone number on their website and any emails sent were given vague two sentence responses.
To sum it up, IAFOR is definitely a predatory conference organizer and should be avoided.
Good to publicize these deceitful scams that prey upon legitimate researchers trying to get their work out. A google search of one of them however, (Global Advanced Research Journal of Agricultural Science) shows that they are also good at manipulating the search engines and dominating the upper echelons of their lists. I think Google should be alerted to this.
Finally someone start digging on potential plagiarism in a couple of Edeas' papers:
[…] OMICS International Totally Sucks Jeffrey Beall […]
Thank you! Yes the Gavin journal covers are terrible and still no articles published both dead giveaways, however I did not think to look at the address (good call). I just got the "be an editor" email through my institution. DELETE
I very recently received this email (from Dr. Tovar, who does indeed have her own LinkedIn page!) as well. A quick check brought me here. Thanks to all of you who are helping the community to be aware of these predatory practices!
That sounds really awful. I'm not sure why people would go to any conference like this, given that there are hundreds of reputable, long-standing conferences every year. Why not just go to the ones in your field that your colleagues highly recommend based on their past experiences?
But, what I really wanted to say is about the quick discrimination on the basis of whether or not the conference is hosted by a for-profit versus a not-for-profit entity. It is very common for people in academia to grossly misunderstand the difference. On the one hand, there are many for-profit organizations that do many good things and provide a lot of value to their customers. On the other, there is nothing at all that ensures that a non-profit will operate in a benevolent or frugal way, nothing, for example, to prevent them from paying their corporate officers multi-million dollar bonuses. The ONLY difference for any business that operates in one of the many fields that qualify for 501(c)3 status is whether or not they can distribute money to shareholders who do not work for the corporation.
I had a dispute with the so-self-called academic European Scientific Journal. I sent my paper for review, holding a strong belief in its high academic standards, but they did not get back to me with a proper peer review report as all academic journals should do. They accepted my paper without revision, and just an email was sent to confirm this. They even published my paper, while I had not sent any confirmation about the payment. After I confirmed that I did not pay the fee, they even threatened me. LOL
I hope OMICS group and many other Indian based low quality OA publishers disappear and we could see a good flow of OA publishers.
Thank you. By "we" I meant the scientific community that keenly follows your work.
Yes, sometimes good research is published in bad journals. My work aims to help researchers avoid submitting their work to low-quality, deceptive, and predatory journals. If someone publishes his work in borderline journals, the journals may go to the bad side of the border. Always submit your work to high-quality, established, and respected journals.
No, I am not a scholarly publishing consultant. I cannot offer any help here.
There's barely anything there to check. This is just a skeleton of a journal. Please don't send anything to this ... website.
Thanks for this post, Jeffrey. We received exactly the same emails described below.
Greetings for the day!
For additional information, a spam from the Open Journal of Plant Science (Peertechz) described in Phylobotanist’s blog:
More adventures in science spammer land (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)
hello Allen, the difference is that with Wiley you can also publish without paying, and that there is a strong peer review
Thank you Sir....