Are you technical guy? How did you analyse it? It is fine to read a book about ( solar) and soft computing?
Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by Pipi
↧
↧
Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by Pipi
The same thing happened to saeem publications. More than 10 papers in oil predictions in different region, especially Arab countries. I will list those papers. Arab country should say thanks to samèem for prediction of oil price . Now, the saudi arabia oil price down. Thank you sameem
↧
Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by Sameem
I did not report anything to anyone. I have clarified about my papers.
↧
Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by Alan C
Don’t know no Saem but I know ‘super achievers’
Pipi, I’m asking you fellas to analyse!
↧
Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by Bernard G
Still we have ethical issue for Human Motion From Qualitative Normalised Templates. I will give you an example, long time ago as Jeffery beall mentioned, the academic journals were added in black list in thompson and most researchers published many papers. Therefore, you ( KMT ) can not say that our papers are good at that time ( 10 years ago).
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Continuing Riposte: Of fake degrees and journals – The inconvenient conversation African universities must have - Ghana Business News
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Continuing Riposte: Of fake degrees and journals – The inconvenient conversation African universities must have | Spy News Agency
↧
Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by Mat Morgan
I agree with behalbiotech regarding the much more importance of methodology, results and final outputs of the paper compared to the introduction which is only a warm up for the readers.
As an academic professor, I believe this is the responsibility of editorial boards of such high level journals to check any issue regarding each paper before publication. I don’t want to advocate any one here, but editorial board could ask the authors to change introduction a bit more to improve the quality of the paper before final publication.
↧
Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by Andrew M
Well, as an academic professor with over 20 years experience in solar and wind energy resources I disagree with post which is kind of insulting. As I read this blog, It seems two groups of researchers are trying to offend the academic reputation of each other which is against the ethic in any case. I teach solar energy engineering in my university for over 15 years in both undergraduate and graduate levels.
Solar radiation prediction and simulation is a broad concept.
Solar radiation is defined as the radiant energy emitted by the sun in the form of electromagnetic energy. The solar radiation arriving the earth’s surface has two components: (1) direct or beam radiation that comes directly from the sun’s disk, and (2) diffuse radiation that comes indirectly is scattered out of the direct beam by the atmosphere into hemisphere of sky dome. The summation of diffuse and direct solar radiation is called global or total solar radiation.
Out of these 21 papers, No 5 is related to heat load in district heating systems which are used to provide required heat for building. No 6 and 14 are related to soil temperature and dew point temperature which are two climatological parameters. No 15 is related to wind energy which is another area of renewable energy. Therefore, we don’t want to talk about them and we should discuss the remaining papers.
It should be mentioned that solar radiation is a highly location dependent parameter. This means the level and characteristics of solar radiation varies from one location to another location. Thus, the developed model for one site cannot be used for other sites except the time we see the similarity between the climate features of the locations. Thus, to establish the solar plants the availability of solar radiation data is required to ensure the site is suitable for investment. In case of lack of measured solar radiation data, the solar radiation should be predicted using mathematical models and approaches for every location or region.
In this regard, the authors cannot be criticized for publishing too many solar papers for different regions.
Also, its seems that different artificial intelligence methods have been used for this aim. If you use the keyword of ANN + solar radiation in the science direct data base you would definitely be able to find a tones of papers. Are all of these papers similar?!
Moreover, as I found, some of the papers are related to global solar radiation and some other are related to diffuse solar radiation. These two components of solar radiation are completely different and their predictions have different applications. So, there shouldn’t be any problem.
One more point that I should mention is that global solar radiation can be predicted using different types of input parameters such as temperature based input parameters or sunshine based input parameters, day-of the year based input parameters, etc. One of the interesting areas of solar radiation simulation is to determine which method is more suitable for the
desired location.
As a solar expert, I’d like to give you a example. Angstrom-Prescott Model, also appeared in the title of paper 8, is one of the most well-known empirical solar radiation model developed by Angstrom-Prescott around 70 years ago and it is still using in this area. If you just search Angstrom-Prescott + solar radiation through google you will see several papers for various case studies. Are all of those authors have published similar papers?!
As I said, solar radiation which has different components is dependent on the location and should be predicted for each location separately. Also, the developed models should be precise as much as possible. This encourages the researchers from all parts of the world, to develop new models using novel approaches to achieve more accuracy.
So a person who is not expert in solar radiation cannot assess the works published in solar energy area.
Hope this post can be useful for all!
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Basia
Dear Prof. Beall
Please tell me about this journal “Pakistan Journal of Nutritions”.
Is it on your list ?
Best regard
Basia Dawoa
↧
Comment on Allied Academies: Bad Business Decisions, Misdirected Blame, and a New Name by Batuhan Akben
I have submitted some manuscripts to Biomedical Research Journal published by Allied Academies. They have rigorously evaluated by reviewers. Even, some of them have been rejected. Reviewing period is about 2-3 months. Publishing period is about 4 months after acceptance. In addition, acceptance rate of the Biomedical Research is about 15% (I think it is not high). If they publish the articles for only money the publishing period would not so long. So, I can say that the Biomedical Research Journal is quite quality.
You made all of Allied Academies Journals suspicious by adding only publisher name in to your list. I think you should list the suspicious journals of Allied Acadimes instead of publisher name.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall
Some of the reasons are <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/04/19/oncotargets-peer-review-is-highly-questionable/" target="_blank">here</a>.
See also <a href="http://www.h2mw.eu/redactionmedicale/2015/05/cf-infra-proc%C3%A9dure-acc%C3%A9l%C3%A9r%C3%A9e-dacceptation-des-articles-rejet%C3%A9s-tr%C3%A8s-sinc%C3%A8rement-dr-alain-braillon-unit.html#more" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Jeffrey Beall
The <em>Pakistan Journal of Nutrition</em> is published by SciAlert, and I have this publisher included on my list. I recommend you find a better journal from a better publisher.
↧
↧
Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Reece Morrell
Science alert apparently has an ‘academy’. This might be of interest: https://academy.sciencealert.com/
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by pati
hello Sir, hi doing? plz can u give me one paper that is predatory in information system?
thx
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by Jeffrey Beall
I don’t analyze at the article level.
↧
Comment on A New Clone of OMICS Publishing Group: MedCrave by Juan Lopez
There is a bogus Quora campaign to lure people into MedCrave:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-get-rid-of-the-rumours-about-Medcrave-Predatory-Publisher
I hope people do not fall for it. Thank you again for this website.
↧
↧
Comment on A New Clone of OMICS Publishing Group: MedCrave by A Scientist
I am still receiving frequent emails from “Daria Miller”. Obviously totally unaware of the previous email responses. I have now several times restarted the conversations for publishing in their journal. For some reason, when asking finally how’s the weather in Hyderabad, they stop responding. Truth hurts.
↧
Comment on Defining Platinum Open Access by A Taxonomy of University Presses Today | Valor de cambio
[…] publish, or those that are authored by university affiliates, which some have characterized as “platinum” open access since no processing fees are charged to the […]
↧
Comment on Scam Publisher OMICS International Buying Legitimate Journals by Robert Kalina
Your information listing Pulsus journals is totally incorrect.
I started Pulsus in 1984 to publish peer review medical journals to serve mainly Canadian medical researchers. At that time every western country had their peer review medical journals, except for Canada. From day one I decided I will own the journals because of the uncertainty of the Societies. The only source of revenue I managed to get was advertising by pharma companies. Americans did not want to subscribe to what they considered low class Canadian publications and Canadians expected to get the journals for free. Advertising paid for the basics, we received some subscriptions, but we managed to provide free journals to Canadian physicians PLUS pay a percentage of revenues to the societies that endorsed us.
We launched Canadian Journal of Cardiology, Gastroenterology, Paediatrics, Respirology, Pain, Plastic Surgery, Sex etc. All official society journals and peer review.
A few years ago, we were in dire straits and sold Experimental & Clinical Cardiology that finally became indexed and we (conservatively) lost a million dollars on. The purchasers turned it into a predatory journal and eventually disappeared. But that saved Pulsus and our legitimate journals.
When the time came for me to retire (I’m almost 70), only the Canadian Cardiovascular Society bought the Journal and one other Society at a considerable discount.
The main indexed journals were bought by Hindawi. They are all thriving. Gastroenterology has an IF of 3. We were left with the journals that nobody wanted to buy. And only those were sold to OMICS.
For 33 years I have published Canadian peer review medical scientific journals with no help from the government, little advertising, free journals for everyone, paying societies and no expression of appreciation by anyone.
Robert Kalina
Publisher
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
