Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel

Embed this content in your HTML


Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog

Channel Description:

Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing

older | 1 | .... | 478 | 479 | (Page 480) | 481 | 482 | .... | 541 | newer

    0 0

    This journal is published by a firm called iSER Publications. The publisher is included on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank">here</a>. I recommend you avoid this journals and the other journals from this publisher.

    0 0

    This journal is not predatory, but it is weak. It has a lot of problems. It requires payment from authors but also requires they transfer copyright. Its contact page only lists a Yahoo.com email address. Not all back issues are available. There is no website for the “society” that hosts the journal. They ask authors to supply their own reviewers. If you are considering sending a paper to this journal, I would recommend you find a better one.

    0 0
  • 09/16/16--22:24: Comment on Appeals by Elen C
  • Hi Sir, May I inquire why IJCSIS (https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/) is included in your list but the journal is indexed by Thomson Reuters – Web of Science)? I am planning to submit a paper but I would like to get first your explanation why you suspect them as predatory. Many thanks in advance for your help.

    0 0

    The European Scientific Institute is indeed a “real organisation”, largely existing to publish dubious vanity journals and organise “a bunch of vacation packages, oops, I mean academic conferences”.

    The “academic certificates of excellence” they issue as a sideline have featured previously at ScholarlyOA:

    0 0

    ACE state they belong to “European Scientific Institute”, who suspiciously look like just another vanity press and scam conference organiser.

    0 0

    I see that there are <b>two</b> European Scientific Institutes; one, founded in 1994, <a href="http://www.esi-archamps.eu/" rel="nofollow">is affiliated to CERN and deals in applications of high-energy-accelerator technologies</a>; while the second, only 5 years old, operates from Macedonia, with the journals / conferences grift and the possibly-purchasable conference Certification.

    0 0

    Dear prof. Hans Hutta, yesterday I already tried to post a revision but in the end of the editorial process it was not popping up in this thread as my second post.

    0 0

    I think this is a completely bogus journal. The claim to have an impact factor when they really do not. They claim to be indexed by one resource that no longer exists. If all you want is to publish in a Thomson Reuters Emerging Sources Citation Indexed journal (and not to engage in authentic scholarly communication) then this journal is the one. Note that TR may remove this journal from their list at any time, given its low quality.

    0 0

    Dear KK and Jablan,

    I appreciate that you may be loyal to your co-author(s). While I commend your loyalty I question your scholarship. Just consider this two titles:

    Adaptive neuro-fuzzy prediction of modulation transfer function of optical lens system


    Modulation Transfer Function Estimation of Optical Lens System by Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Methodology

    From the titles alone you can tell that the
    a) problem is on estimation /prediction of modulation transfer function
    b) domain is Optical Lens System
    c) methodology is neuro-fuzzy

    What is the difference here? What is the originality? What is the contribution? To put in layman terms what is the story the second article is telling that the first has not already told…

    That is just from the title only, now take a look at the papers, they have the same data, figures and tables, one even have a mistake of data taken from another subject matter. The results have been made to look like they are different but …

    I am just using 2 or 3 articles as examples here. There is a long list with this posting. Please see for yourself. But, I’m sure you have.

    Yes it is an Editorial decision, but Editors owe their existence to readers’ subscriptions. Selling journals with replicated materials is a form of hoodwinking readers. As a reader, I take offence that the Journal charged me for an article that has appeared in another Journal and which I have also paid for. i.e. I paid for the same story repeatedly! In the long run, I may withdraw my subscription! That is from the readers point of view.

    From the Editors’ point of view, subscriptions’ cancellation spells money lost, spells bad business! So Editors’ have to take this seriously! Editors’, if you are reading this, please note!

    From a scholarly point of view, scientific publication is so that authors can share their findings, hypothesis/theories, the lines of reasoning and evidence for the progress of science[1].

    If the same findings, hypothesis/theories, the lines of reasoning and evidence are repeated in several articles, where is the scientific progress? Changing the format of the results from one article to another does not constitute progress. The articles do not offer any new insights, science stagnates. The authors are advised to carry out other researches so their research can progress and they can contribute to the progress of scientific knowledge!

    BTW, using different standard methods to do one thing is not novel! The techniques used in these articles are standard machine learning techniques!

    Reference: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_15

    0 0

    JD– UM is the largest university in Malaysia. It is prestigious to work there, but it is well known that they have very questionable research ethics. This incident is already the third time this year that UM is involved in a scandal.

    A research group earned several retractions due to image manipulation:


    They also recently hired a researcher who is under investigation:


    0 0

    Here’s how I know you are ridiculous:

    “We believe that the science is the most moving wheel in the big machine of human progress. We appeal to innovate and share knowledge with each other!”

    0 0

    Can I trust your impact factor?

    0 0


    0 0

    Although editors should have never accepted these studies, it is at the end of the day the authors’ responsibility not to publish repetitive work. Some of the studies mentioned above will be undoubtedly retracted and it will be leave a stain on the authors’ and the university’s record.

    0 0

    After finding out that Anuar N.B or Nor Badrul Anuar is holding the Deputy Dean Of Research And Development in the Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Malaysia, this saga takes another twist. It is also found out that another co-author – Nenad D. Pavlović (https://www.ni.ac.rs/en/contacts/rectorate-contacts/14-rectorate/3-prof-dr-nenad-d-pavlovic.html) is the Vice-Rector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rector_(academia)) aka Vice-Chancellor for scientific work and publishing activities in University of Niš, Serbia.

    Jeffrey, did you manage to contact them to clarify this issue ?

    0 0

    SGEM. They don’t explain what their acronym means

    “Surveying Geology & mining Ecology Management”.

    0 0

    Is the Academic World for Education and Research Center a legitimate international conference organizer? Here’s the link to one of the conferences that they are organizing for next year: http://www.globalcenter.info/ic-ed/

    0 0

    Hmmm, this is getting interesting! With a number of High Stake Players! I noticed that another co-author Gani, A or Abdullah Gani is the Dean of the Faculty where, Anuar N.B. and Shamshirband, S works (https://umexpert.um.edu.my/abdullah)

    0 0

    No. I have its organizer, the Academic World Education & Research Center included on my list (as a publisher). The conference website looks more like a travel agency website, and they use @gmail.com email addresses. I think there are many “International Conference on Education” that are much better than this one, so I would recommend you seek a stronger conference. This one is a dead end.

    0 0

    Apologize, thought they were alphabeticized – seems that was not the case, only partially

older | 1 | .... | 478 | 479 | (Page 480) | 481 | 482 | .... | 541 | newer