Articles on this Page
- 10/17/16--05:59: _Comment on Everythi...
- 10/17/16--07:02: _Comment on Everythi...
- 10/17/16--07:38: _Comment on Two More...
- 10/17/16--08:58: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/17/16--17:12: _Comment on Oncotarg...
- 10/18/16--03:44: _Comment on Sting Op...
- 10/18/16--08:08: _Comment on Bogus Br...
- 10/18/16--08:33: _Comment on Bogus Jo...
- 10/18/16--08:53: _Comment on Bogus Br...
- 10/18/16--11:41: _Comment on Bogus Br...
- 10/18/16--13:53: _Comment on Re-Launc...
- 10/19/16--03:17: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/19/16--04:00: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/19/16--04:00: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/19/16--07:00: _Comment on A New Cl...
- 10/19/16--08:27: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/19/16--09:03: _Comment on Bogus Br...
- 10/19/16--09:06: _Comment on Bogus Br...
- 10/19/16--13:14: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/19/16--14:26: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/19/16--04:00: Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Alon
FD: I can basically agree with you. Incentives like large payments and promotions to prestigious institutes for publication in these journals verses the tough job of actually reading the papers of the scientist and making an assessment based on the content is quite dangerous.
It is ironic when one contrasts this with the life of people like the co-discoverer of calculus. Both Newton and Leibniz developed calculus, largely independently. However, Leibniz developed the very notation for integrals and derivatives that is learned by _every single_ engineering and science major (almost exactly as the original!). Yet only the man’s secretary attended his funeral. The man died alone. So much for all the cheap pomp and charades of academia.
Apparently, genuine value and innovation is rarely attributed correctly, even by experts.
FD – There are things that can generally be agreed upon as indicators of quality or lack thereof in a scientific paper. The badly written papers published in the predatory journals tagged by Jeffrey show obvious examples of the latter: grammar errors that render information ambiguous or incomprehensible, inconsistently labelled figures or equations, mathematical errors or inconsistencies, inadequately explained conclusions or leaps of logic, major extrapolations from a few experimental data points, etc. Editors and peer reviewers at scientific journals should act as gatekeepers to separate properly written-up, rigorously carried out research from shakily founded, incomprehensible stuff written to satisfy quotas or promote an ideological point. In theory, under a free-market ethos, journals which do a good job of this deserve to earn higher fees so that they can pay their editors a salary that reflects their skill and integrity. (One can obviously discuss whether subscription fees adequately reflect the quality of a particular journal.)
When you eliminate the badly written papers, ones with flimsy logic, ones with inadequate evidence to back up their claims etc., then yes, it becomes harder to single out the highest-quality or most important papers. So to an extent, I guess, I agree with you – a few “elite” journals shouldn’t be lauded too much above all others (the same way graduates of “elite” universities or secondary schools shouldn’t be given overly preferential treatment). However, I’m less concerned with this end of the spectrum of quality and more with eliminating the stuff at the bottom which may be perpetuating misinformation or just obscuring higher-quality research under a pile of incomprehensible flim-flam. It’s all very well to say that all research can now be published for free on the Internet, but most people don’t have the time to wade through every unedited paper on sites like Vixra to find nuggets of useful and reliable information.
Just got asked to review an article for them. This posting was very helpful in my decision to decline the request.
I see many problems. I recommend against publishing in this publisher’s journals.
I will state some facts related to the points you made above
1- In other very well established and prestigious journals, the fee to get your papers published, can range from 2,000 to 3,800usd, more so if the paper includes color figures, so the point about the cost of publishing in Oncotarget, in my view is mute.
2- In my experience, the manuscripts I have submitted to Oncotarget have undergone stringent peer review by 2 of more reviewers. Who all asked for additional experiments, which we had to perform before resubmiting the revised version of our manuscript.
3- The statement about: “if you do not have time for a full review, a general opinion regarding suitablity for publication will be acceptable”. I myself have received requests of the same sort from other reputable journals. This includes rejection, without full review. So this is quite common practise.
4- The issue about publishing questionable data, that has happened with many reputable jurnals, including Nature, Science, Blood, Journal of biological Chemistry, to name a few. In these jurnals, numerous papers have had to be retracted on several ocasions! Cheating is part of the human nature, and we can only do our best to prevent it from happeneing for the peer review systerm is not bullet proof!
5- The publishing system is far from perfect, but Oncotarget does not veer away from the most reputable journals in the biomedical field.
Maria G Castro, PhD
[…] Neste contexto, há, inclusive, a constatação de falsa execução de revisão editorial qualificada. Recentemente, noticiou-se que um pesquisador enviou uma pesquisa inventada para uma editoria de acesso aberto e, em pouco tempo, recebeu um “peer review” favorável aceitando a submissão e acompanhado da solicitação de pagamento indispensável para a publicação https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/06/25/sting-operation-nails-korean-oa-publisher/. […]
The (sad) thing is that CPD is a genuine organization that has done some useful stuff and actually has an important role in continuing professional development.
Somewhat interesting, however, is that according to the CPD Standards Office, conference series LLC “…is currently under CPDSO investigation”
[…] that it would get accepted, considering past “experiments,” such as the “Get me off Your Fucking Mailing List” paper. However, I thought that we would have to try a couple of different journals before it […]
Thanks for the link. I am happy to see they are re-considering. However, an accreditation agency should not make such blunders. They are supposed to be the experts and do proper vetting. It appears they completely fell asleep at the wheel here, or the prospect of earning money to “accredit” the many hundreds of OMICS conferences was too much for them to resist.
Good grief, I did not know that Finland has annexed Texas and UK
It’s a shocking sign of the times that my eyebrows no longer raise when I read your posts!
It’s not on my list. It’s not a predatory journal.
your <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/">list of standalone journals</a> includes the <i>Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies R&D</i>. It seems the people behind it have branched out into a whole house under the name <a href="http://journals-of-scientifcs-rd.com/" rel="nofollow">JSRD</a>. Might be worth considering for inclusion.
Now they are having last minute deals:
“Hope you are doing well.
Apologize if I am disturbing you with my email.
We are pleased to inform you that Journal of Human Virology & Retrovirology is planning to release the Volume 3 issue 6 and we are in need of one article to accomplish this issue. In fact my desire is to fulfil the issue with your article. Your prompt submission will help me to release the issue by October 20.
However I do have only 24 hours to place your article in this issue. We request you to submit your valuable manuscript as early as possible i.e. by the end of this week.
Hope you understand my concern and look forward to hear from you soon.
Your email within 24 hours will boost a hope to me.
Await your rapid come back.
Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I see what you mean: this single journal now appears to have evolved into a publisher with 25 journals. I have added the publisher, Journals of Scientifics R&D, to my publisher list.
Thank you again.
Remember that this is OMICS. It is possible they never accredited any OMICS conferences, but rather that OMICS requested it, and CPDSO is still investigating. Just like people who have been asked to give a presentation or be part of the Editorial Board have seen themselves listed as presenting or Editorial Board member well before they responded (or after, and even if their response was negative).
All your base are belong to Finland!
[…] Attention aux editeurs predateurs : Beall’s list […]
Dear Prof. Beal,
I am wondering if http://www.ijcsit.com/ is a fake journal or not? It has some predatory factors and is not in your list. (Has no address and has a small board)
Also I did submit a paper for IJCSIT of AIRCC. Then I saw your list yesterday , which was pretty late. May I ask why AIRCC is a predatory publisher?
Thank you very much for your time.