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


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing

older | 1 | .... | 481 | 482 | (Page 483) | 484 | 485 | .... | 541 | newer

    0 0

    hey Jeffrey Beall.. what is your opinion about this journal IJRSD http://ijsrd.com/ .is it fake? they are also publish more than 200 article per month i don't understand what's about submissions?

    0 0

    Definitely do not register for these conferences. That New York address is misleading; it's not their real address. I generally advise avoiding all conferences organized by publishers on my list, especially this one.

    0 0

    Yes, this is a completely bogus journal. Please do not submit any papers to this journal.

    0 0

    I don't think they're being criticized primarily for shoddy or non-existent peer review (at least if they don't advertise peer review) - they're being criticized for sending spam emails, taking people's banking information and the rights to their work, and providing a largely useless service in return. http://chrisnf.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/academic-spam.html

    0 0

    […] category, the AAPS’ journal isn’t listed at all. It is, however, included on an oft-cited list of “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals” put out by a […]

    0 0

    […] category, the AAPS’ journal isn’t listed at all. It is, however, included on an oft-cited list of “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals” put out by a […]

    0 0

    […] category, the AAPS’ journal isn’t listed at all. It is, however, included on an oft-cited list of “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals” put out by a […]

    0 0

    I would not say that that in itself says anything about his credibility. Open source 3-D printable stuff has been a pretty hot topic from both the engineering and economic perspectives. It's the grandeur and all this Wiki stuff...

    0 0

    Agreed - it is not unknown for scholars in technical areas to also publish in entrepreneurial/economic journals. The grandeur is, of course, another matter entirely,

    0 0

    […] the AAPS’ journal isn’t listed at all. It is, however, included on an oft-cited list of “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals” put out […]

    0 0

    So is MDPI in or out? I get asked all the time to review papers for Forests (i'm an ecologist). When asked to review articles, I always do two things before even checking whether the subject matter fits my expertise: I come to Beall's list to make sure the journal/publisher is NOT listed, and I go to Web of Science to make sure the journal IS indexed (as they have standards for whether they'll index a journal's articles and give the journal an impact factor and other stats). Based on those two criteria, MDPI journals seem to make the grade and be legit. But then I read stuff like this post, which makes me think they're not legit (however, this post lacks a date and author...I assume it's by Beall, and he doesn't have guest posters).

    0 0

    […] the AAPS’ journal isn’t listed at all. It is, however, included on an oft-cited list of “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals” put out […]

    0 0

    I removed MDPI from my list in October, 2015. Yes, I wrote it; the date is at the bottom and hard to see, a feature of the blog platform. I have had several guest posts over the past four years and eight months.

    0 0

    Does anyone actually fall for these article solicitations anymore? Lisseth Tovar's bio on the IMR website says she works at 'this hospital', despite the fact that the website is for a journal. It's not even a good attempt at fraud. Anyway, thought I'd stop by to mention that I got hit with some IMR spam on 9/20. I don't recall getting the first email, but there is a chance it got caught in my spam folder. Needless to say, I will be blocking all emails coming from @internalmedicinereview.org addresses from here on! Dear Dr. , My last email must have reached you at a bad time so I am following up. If you are not the right person to talk to about this please let me know or feel free to forward this email. I am also pasting links to a couple of our recently published articles so you may have a sense of the style and formatting. Current Technological State of Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Lung Cancer Longitudinal Follow-up Study of Bone Mineral Density in Adult Survivors of Solid Pediatric Cancers Sincerely, Dr. Lisseth Tovar -- From: Dr. Lisseth Tovar, M.D. Date: 2016-09-16 12:56:04.352 To: "Dr. " Subject: Followup to Dr. 's article? Dear Dr. , I hope this email finds you well. My colleague asked if I could get in touch with you about a paper you authored entitled "We are prepared to spam you relentlessly". Firstly, thank you for taking the time to publish this, it was an interesting read. I am hoping to discuss with you having a short follow-up article or perhaps a review article published in one of the next issues of the Internal Medicine Review. I think our readers would be interested in a paper with information from any continued research or new data since this was published. It would not have to be a long article, but if you don't have time for this perhaps you could ask one of your co-authors or students to collaborate or contribute instead. If you have moved on from your previous research interests I am certainly interested in knowing more about your current projects; perhaps there is the potential for an article that would be published in our journal. If you have any questions about whether or not a certain subject fits our scope I can put you in contact with Dr. Chadwick Prodromos from our editorial board. Could you please let me know your thoughts on this? Sincerely, Dr. Lisseth Tovar, M. D. Senior Editor Internal Medicine Review www.internalmedicinereview.org

    0 0

    Dear Dr. Beall, A colleague I respect spoke highly of you and sent me your blog post. Accusations on this blog based on anonymous Wikipedia editors falls into the same trap I am accused of (i.e. they are as groundless as deleting your page) – I respectfully ask that you remove them because from my perspective this looks a lot like a witch hunt using Wikipedia sock puppets. The charges are serious enough I felt the need to respond formally. As you know I am a proponent of open source hardware – which must have struck a nerve somewhere for me to be a target of such a weird campaign. It is particularly interesting that this came out the day after I released public comment on Europe’s open access policy. I have over 200 peer-reviewed articles that have been cited in the peer-reviewed literature over 5000 times. Most are sci-tech, but a few are policy related. A few times a year something our lab does makes the news – so it does not seem abnormal that some of them are used by Wikipedia. As I told you earlier I had ceased trying to help Wikipedia many years ago as for me it was a big waste of time. (See my obliterated article explaining the concept of "fill factor" as evidence). Note: this also means I am familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that attempting to delete your page would be pointless unless I was willing to spend hours defending the claims. Why would I bother doing that unless I was a moron? To the best of my knowledge only one of my articles has been published in any journal on your list. The article was about calculating the value of open hardware. It was a follow up to an earlier article I published in Science. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6100/1303 It definitely went through peer-review as I remember having to add more depth to the core example for revision. I believe it is technically sound - although the copy editing is messed up. It showed that the value created developing open hardware easily overcomes the investment. It said: “The inescapable conclusion of this study is that FOSH development should be funded by organizations interested in maximizing return on public investments particularly in technologies associated with science, medicine and education. ” This conclusion has very serious repercussions for public funding of sci-tech in the U.S. (and public access to it for all uses) and I am sure makes some people angry. That said, if you are aware of actual flaws in the math or logic – please let me know immediately. Due to the obvious potential for accusations of hypocrisy I wanted it in an open access journal — not a lot of good choices is this new field at the time. I am personally not happy with that particular publishing experience (non native English speaking copy editing) – I have also had poor experiences with the top traditional publishers. I have no idea what the actual goals of the people/person was in messing with your account and smearing me. If you disagree with anything I have actually written (you can tell because I sign it) I am happy to debate – although I prefer it in some sort of legitimate neutral forum rather than blogs or Wikipedia talk pages where anyone can say anything. Sincerely Joshua Pearce

    0 0

    This is the recent one on OMICS and its subsidiary iMedPub https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-charges-academic-journal-publisher-omics-group-deceived

    0 0

    Okay. Thanks for that information (and thanks for the service you provide the scientific community). MDPI's legitimacy just gets confusing when I see you delisting them, and WoS indexing them, yet there are articles all over the place trashing them. I'm happy to review a Forests article, so as to give the authors feedback, but it seems a waste of my time if the editors won't hold the authors feet to the fire and require them to respond to reviewer comments.

    0 0
  • 09/23/16--15:03: Comment on Appeals by Petr
  • Dear dr.Beal, is a American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine "predator" journal, or confident for our publishing please? http://www.sciepub.com/journal/AJSSM/indexing Thank you very much

    0 0

    I recommend you avoid this journal. It is from a publisher called "Science and Education Publishing," which claims to be based in the U.S. but is really from China. This publisher is inclined on my list. I recommend you find a journal from a better publisher for your work.

    0 0

    Sir may you tell me pleaz about the following journal and if it contain real impact factor African Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology

older | 1 | .... | 481 | 482 | (Page 483) | 484 | 485 | .... | 541 | newer