The main issue here is that Science and Nature are the two journals every academic wants to publish in. Well, in my field this new awesome journal would be “The Journal of Nature, Science, and Physical Review Letters.” None of those words are proprietary, but would cause much hilarity when combined.
Comment on Everything’s Bogus at The Journal of Nature and Science by CN
↧
↧
Comment on Other pages by Reed
Scholarena has another website now, http://www.scholarenajournals.com with the exact same content, including fake headquarters. They are sending out requests for editors.
↧
Comment on Other pages by Jeffrey Beall
Thanks.
↧
Comment on Everything’s Bogus at The Journal of Nature and Science by Marco
How about the journal called “Nature and Science”? No need to say you published in the journal of nature and science, you actually can say, without blinking, that you published in “Nature and Science” – http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/
It’s the home of this hilarious paper:
http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/ns0712/05_2012_easy_ns0712_31_32.pdf
Easy experiment to visualize dark matter…or it could be dust…
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by M.L. Rahman
What about Plos one journal? I think, it is good. Is there any story?
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Harun-or-Rashid
Dear Sir Prof. Beall.
I want to know about European Journal of Biotechnology and Bioscience; and, Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. Both are fake? Please ?
↧
Comment on Everything’s Bogus at The Journal of Nature and Science by wkdawson
FD:
It is not exactly “every academic”, but most of us who are serious researchers consider the quality of some of our discoveries or ideas worthy of publishing in top journals, such as those. It would surely look better on a resume and would make it easier to get hired if you have such arrows in your quiver.
Moreover, there is a certain value in the quality of peer review of these journals. It is not always exactly true, but having been asked to review for one of the Nature journals before, I did see the work of other reviewers. On the other hand, I have also seen some reviewer’s work that was far better in my guest editor stent at Entropy than and many top journals. So the most important thing is to have reviewers who actually read and think about your work and don’t play politics. Those reviewers are priceless and you should thank them, sincerely — even if they are harsh with you. What you want is that your paper shines, and peer review of a good idea can really do that — and it can also improve mediocre ideas too.
Of course, there is also the dark side of this. It would pay to remember that Rutherford, an excellent English scientist, called nuclear power “pure moonshine”. For all the glitter and pomp, the bloke on the street is almost just as qualified as the so-called “expert” to predict the future. So the hype and arrogance that comes with these things, and the notion that success is really powered by one’s own strength and abilities is a far too oversold aspect of this venue. A lot of this is the product of good luck, good circumstance, good opportunities and good timing, though obviously some genuine skill is a critical prerequisite. Some people are very good, but misfortune follows them around. So it is not exactly as it appears.
Moreover, there is a tendency to game the system because of the points. Because there are vast pressures to obtain the good life, fraud in varying shades also happens. This blog attacks OA, but it is a problem everywhere. Maybe it is easier to get away with it in these obscure OAs, but I think this was always the case even long before OA was even a concept.
So it is not like everything good and worthy is in Science and Nature, and everything junk is elsewhere. Gold can be anywhere, dross also.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Jeffrey Beall
<em>PLOS ONE</em> is not on my list at this time.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Jeffrey Beall
Yes, both of these journals are included on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank">here</a>. I recommend that you <strong>not </strong>send any papers to them.
↧
↧
Comment on Everything’s Bogus at The Journal of Nature and Science by wkdawson
The word “obfuscate” is rooted from Latin: “around” and “darken”.
Politicians typically obfuscate
Therefore, politicians must have loads of dark matter; they’re always keeping us in the dark aren’t they?
QED
it almost works… :-)
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by James
Can you please confirm if this is a predatory Journal, sir?International Journal of Academic Journal and Reflection
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Jeffrey Beall
Yes, it is. It is published by a firm called Progressive Academic Publishing. I have this publisher included on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank">here</a>, and I recommend that you not send your papers to any journals from this publisher.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by yash
Dear Beall please tell me about American Journal of Gastroenterology as I have recently received a reviewer invitation from this journal. Should I be cautious about this journal? Please help.
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Jeffrey Beall
There’s a journal with this title published by Springer Nature, and it’s not a predatory journal. If this is the journal you are asking about, there is no need to be cautious about this one.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by James
Hi Beall: So there is so much junk passing around as credible academic work, right? Thanks for keeping this conversation ongoing. Can you please confirm the following as predatory publishers, sir?
The Exchange: A Journal of Academic Forum
Canadian Center of Science and Education
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Jeffrey Beall
I don’t have the The Exchange: A Journal of Academic Forum on my list at this time.
I do have the so-called Canadian Center of Science and Education included on my list of questionable publishers and recommend against submitting papers to any of its journals.
↧
Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by scholaybeall
Let’s talk duplication for gesture recognition – An analysis of 2 papers
1) Haitham Badi • Sabah Hasan Hussein, Sameem Abdul Kareem, Feature extraction and ML techniques for static gesture recognition, Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:733–741.
2) Gesture Feature Extraction for Static Gesture Recognition, Haitham Sabah Hasan · Sameem Binti Abdul Kareem, Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3349–3366.
3) Hasan, H., Sameem Abdul Kareem. (2014). Static hand gesture recognition using neural networks. Artificial Intelligence Review, 41(2), 147-181.
It is another duplication or salami paper.
These papers are similar in all sections. Abstract, Introduction, Proposed methods, result and discussion.
↧
↧
Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by Bernard G
Dear Beall,
Could you analyse there papers?
1) Haitham Badi • Sabah Hasan Hussein, Sameem Abdul Kareem, Feature extraction and ML techniques for static gesture recognition, Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:733–741.
2) Gesture Feature Extraction for Static Gesture Recognition, Haitham Sabah Hasan · Sameem Binti Abdul Kareem, Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3349–3366.
3) Hasan, H., Sameem Abdul Kareem. (2014). Static hand gesture recognition using neural networks. Artificial Intelligence Review, 41(2), 147-181.
It is another duplication or salami paper.
These papers are similar in all sections. Abstract, Introduction, Proposed methods, result and discussion.
↧
Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by Jeffrey Beall
My library does not provide access to the second one (number 2), so I cannot see it, but I will have a look at the other two.
↧
Comment on Scam Publisher OMICS International Buying Legitimate Journals by Jeffrey Beall
The “E” in ESCI means “expanded.” It appears they expanded too much.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
