Looks like that one definitely fits my description above. Just see what they require:
“There are no regular responsibilities for the Editorial Board Members. Occasionally, you will be requested to give your input on new ideas, decisions or changes in the policies, procedures and guidelines of IJRPS”
It’s pretty close to CV padding.
For sure it is a quality journal with a review being returned within a couple of days…
They are also fishing for “reviewers”. I have received a very odd email from Riya Jacob:
Dear xxxx
Manuscript Title: “Analysis of Infection Prevention and Control Activities”
I would like to present to you a very interesting piece of article that we have just received for the Journal “Annals of Infectious Disease and Epidemiology”.
Since the scope (topic) of the manuscript is closely related to your area of research interest. I thought it would be more appropriate and fitting to assign this manuscript to you.
I am sure you would be interested in
Kindly respond to this email by typing ACCEPT if you choose to review the manuscript. Once we receive your email confirmation a copy of the full length manuscript along with a review form will be sent to you.
Kindly let us know your decision.
Best Regards,
Riya Jacob
Editorial Manager
Remedy Publications LLC
820 EL Camino Real
Belmont, CA 94002, USA
Tel: +1-415-690-1011
Email: infectiousdisease@remedypublications.com
Web: http://www.remedypublications.com
First, thanks so much for all the work on these pages. Immensely helpful, and not just to academia.
I work in a professional organization where there is a lot of overlap with academic fields, but not necessarily day to day experience with academic publications and conferences. Some people, yes, but not a majority; even those who are more in that environment may not be as aware of the rise of predators as it is not a day-to day exposure.
We have just taken the list for possible predatory conferences, as there is interest in some quarters here around Infonex offerings (they bombard us with faxes) – but they raise red flags for me. Wide topic choices, presenter shifts to conference chair without any real reason, 6 weeks out and no venue…let’s just say we are unconvinced it’s the best use of funds. I think the criteria will be most helpful, and I’ll happily communicate back how it went.
If others are interested in viewing more at http://www.infonex.ca/index.shtml other opinions are most welcome.
This company is still at it. Thanks for posting all the details. Sharing to twitter,
Well, now that this Journal is at the Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports would be still considered a bad quality journal?
Thank you Jeff.
Your service to sincere academic researchers like me is invaluable. If the name of a journal is not familiar, your list is the one that I rely on. Thank you.
Best regards,
Murthy
How can you”experts” discredit Seneff’s research as not peer reviewed, when all of the “research” showing Glyphosate as “safe” is from Monsanto and others that are compensated by Monsanto? To me, the more important information in her article relates to the multiple references to microcephally being related to glyphosate. That will prove to be the cause of the birth defects, not ZEKA. Her article was published in 2013.
Dear Pat,
I took a quick look at infonex’s website and they are a company offering professional development courses and training seminars. Therefore my list designed for use with academic conferences can’t really be used as is to evaluate their offerings. For example, looking at their website there are no names or titles of anyone working for the company. This would be a red flag for an academic conference organizer but I don’t know if it is unusual for a non-degree granting educational services company. The names are not a secret they are easily found on linkedin.
I’d be interested hearing about your experiences using the criteria to identify poor practices in the area of professional development and training.
I read most of the negative comments in here and in a couple of other blogs on Lambert Academic Publishing.
While I read feelings and reactions, I did not read a single post explaining what is the practice being criticized and what are the examples.
As a researcher and an academic I find it odd to follow an advise of someone who says x is bad without explaining what is it exactly x did.
The fact is Lambert Academic Publishing publishes peer reviewed dissertations and theses. They do not review the work.
Consequently, academics and researchers having issues with the University based peer review process are causing university education the harm and not Lambert Publishing.
Here we have academics saying that the peer review of universities is not reliable.
The University and its academics review PhD dissertations and Master’s theses. Are you saying, we cannot trust the credentials of these peers.
I was surprised by these criticisms which clash with my own. Having recently published in Oncotarget for the first time I found all reviews cogent and perspicacious. They spotted weaknesses, errors and omissions and the resubmitted articles significantly improved as a result. Colleagues’ experiences match my own. The IF (now down to about 5) seems about right. Recent expansion from monthly to weekly may well stress the editorial process, however, at least initially resulting in a reviewer chokepoint.
Thanks for this site.
I received the same e-mail from Kateryna and onother reply because I didn’t answer the first time!
[…] O Professor Jeffrey Beall, que costumeiramente traz análises e revelações sobre os efeitos da propagação exponencial de revistas predatórias sobre a qualidade das publicações científicas, acaba de produzir uma postagem lapidar sobre o irmão siamês do “Trash science“, o também pernicioso “Salami science” (Aqui!). […]
I do not, sorry. I specialize only in identifying the low-quality and predatory publishers.
It just goes to show that shoddy and incomplete editorial and peer review processes are not confined to open access publishers. Elsevier (and probably other) reputable academic publishers are just as prone to scammers if they are not rigorous enough in their processes.
agreed, but this leads to another question. is it in elsevier’s interest to be more rigorous in their processes?
AIMS Geosciences is also sending out “special invitations” to publish with an option to unsubscribe from further spam, although I have never been signing up for anything. Unfortunately spamming indicates on turning to the “dark side”.
I got a “special invitation” from AIMS Geosciences published by AIMS Press. The offer contained an option to “unsubscribe” although I never have been subscribing for it or dealing with AIMS in any way. To make things more fishy, journals published by “AIMS Press” do not show up on the main site of AIMS (aimsciences.org).
Although spamming and no cross linking between sites both are not definite indicators of predatory journal, they definitely rise some questions and can be considered a bad practice.
Wait till the salami slicers discover the cyberknife….
