- RSS Channel Showcase 2619661
- RSS Channel Showcase 4906442
- RSS Channel Showcase 1771901
- RSS Channel Showcase 5914146
Articles on this Page
- 10/19/16--14:34: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/20/16--11:36: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/20/16--11:49: _Comment on Article ...
- 10/20/16--12:40: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/20/16--12:55: _Comment on Appeals ...
- 10/20/16--13:11: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/20/16--13:15: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/20/16--13:23: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/20/16--13:39: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/20/16--13:45: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/20/16--14:03: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/21/16--08:02: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/21/16--08:08: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/21/16--08:24: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/21/16--09:33: _Comment on The OMIC...
- 10/21/16--11:22: _Comment on About Th...
- 10/21/16--11:53: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/21/16--11:54: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/21/16--12:57: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/21/16--13:50: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/20/16--12:55: Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
- 10/20/16--13:11: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Dorothy Drew
- 10/20/16--13:15: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by tekija
- 10/20/16--13:23: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Joe
- 10/20/16--13:39: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by MrBean
- 10/20/16--13:45: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Jeffrey Beall
- 10/20/16--14:03: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Prof. Jacob
- 10/21/16--08:02: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by NoSpam
- 10/21/16--08:08: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by AmandaRW
- 10/21/16--08:24: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Jeffrey Beall
- 10/21/16--11:53: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Klaas van Dijk
- 10/21/16--11:54: Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Bryan Zimmer
- 10/21/16--12:57: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Aviv Shachak
Yes, I have this journal included on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank">here</a>. I recommend that you do not submit any papers to this journal.
The 'Not currently indexed for MEDLINE' line is also applied to previous titles if there has been a title change for example. So be careful!
I enjoy the predatory journal's claim to "brain-based learning." I'd never heard that phrase before but it certainly sounds more sensible than the elbow-based kind.
On a related note, for records from Web of Science Core Collection (now of Clarivate Analytics), it is difficult to detect whether the journals belong to Emerging Sources Citation Index which are just being tracked and under consideration, or to the main database which has passed through a more rigorous selection.
Actually, in both cases, the <strong>publisher</strong> of each journal is included on my list. I list only the publisher whenever possible, because there re so many individual journals. Please always check to see of a journal's publisher is on the list, and if it is, this listing applies to all the journals it publishes. Good luck.
It should be noted it's a medical database, so it can't be expected to be a comprehensive list of plant science related journals. It's also worth noting that in a search of PubMed alternate terms may be substituted. For example looking at nutrients in Kale, pubmed will add in the generic term "brassica" not the specific species name. Which may be ok but if you only want kale you get a lot of non-Kale articles in PubMed. Any systematic review that states a specific search expression was done in PubMed must be taken with a grain of salt when they compare results to other databases -- were general terms used that ended up with substitutes. (not part of not relying on PubMed for journal authenticity but an aspect most researchers don't realize happens)
This is generally sound advice, except for literature reviews. Especially for systematic reviews, the search should be as wide as possible, and quality checks are applied after rather than during search phase.
For Engineering/IT journals use Inspec (by The IET, UK).
For Humanities/Social Sciences use Erih Plus (by Norwegian Government).
For Education journals use ERIC (by US Government).
For Medical journals use MedLine (by US Government).
For Philosophy journals use Philosopher's Index.
For Muslim world journals use Index Islamicus.
For Jew Journals use Index to Jewish Periodicals.
And that's all. Enjoy...
Your exhortation does not make much sense, Jeffrey Beall.
If you consider MEDLINE as the only mean of "Whitelist" journals, you seem restricting the scientific knowledge to Medicine only because Medline is by definition a database for Medicine literature, but not for mathematics, physics, chemistry, agriculture, geology, etc.
What would be abnormal, by contrast, is to find a journal specialized in Chemistry, Physics, Veterinary or Civil Engineering indexed in MEDLINE!
So, your caution to consider MEDLINE as the unique proxy of whitelist journals cannot be valid.
Thanks for your comment, and I regret the confusion. This is meant to apply to bio-medical sciences research, not all research.
Highly reputed and respected databases mentioned by Joe. No question at all.
Oncotarget is the one that immediately came to mind. It's been a few months since I did my research, but based on my recollection, some of Bentham's journals are in Medline, although I am not sure if any are from the open access arm -- they all report Bentham Science as a publisher on PubMed. Frontiers' journals, including Bioscience. Probably others, based on the breadth of your list and the presence of big names in it.
I think there is some confusion that needs to be addressed. You state; "MEDLINE is a curated, vetted list of about 5,600 journals that have been reviewed and approved by the National Library of Medicine. These journals are just a small fraction of the nearly 26,000 journals indexed in PubMed." This is a little misleading. If you count by the number of articles (as opposed to the number of journals), Medline contains approximately 94% of Pubmed coverage. The disparity in the number of journals is because many of the Pubmed-not-Medline journals have only one or two articles, while the indexed for Medline journals might have many more articles. Take as an example the Journal of Hospital Librarianship, which is not indexed by Medline. There are 6 articles from the journal found in Pubmed, because authors have opted to make them available through PubMed Central. To find other articles from JHL, you'll need to search CINAHL, or other library literature sources.
Thanks for your helpful comment. To clarify, the point is that, of those 6% of articles, a certain percentage of them will be from predatory journals. If you are doing a literature review, you will probably want a way to exclude those, and limiting to MEDLINE journals is a good way to do this.
Also, the blog post is mostly about selecting a whitelist for journals, as in selecting a journal to publish in, so the number or proportion of articles is not relevant to that. A curated list of 5,600 journals is more selective than an uncurated list of 26,000.
My name is Antonio Cepeda-Benito. I was offered to be the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Mental Disorders and Treatment. I read through the materials they sent and all seemed fine--a project in the making that I thought I could contribute to create and shape from scratch. That's what lured me. However, once I started to see that I had zero control or decision making authority, and realized their unethical practices, I immediately stepped down from my post. This was about 8 months ago. They promised me they would take my name down, picture, etc. I'm still waiting; I feel powerless and not knowing how to proceed. They have imprisoned me, stolen my identity. So, yes naive and victim.
thanks so much for investigating this for all our benefit! it sounded very fishy to me as well, and googling "lisseth tovar" brought me to your site. just received this last week and sent it straight to my spam folder.... needless to say the journals they are inviting me to publish in have nothing to do with my research either.
Dear Dr. ,
We still haven't been able to reach you so I would like to provide you with a free subscription to our journal so you may get acquainted with what we publish. You may get access with the credentials below. Could you please contact me as soon as convenient for you concerning the follow-up or review article?
Login page: http://internalmedicinereview.org/index.php/imr/login
From: Dr. Lisseth Tovar, M.D. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 2016-10-10 18:26:53.459
To: "Dr. "
Subject: Re: Update to Dr. 's article?
Dear Dr. ,
My previous email must have been delivered at a bad time so I am checking it again. If you are not the right person to talk to about this, please, let me know or feel free to forward this email.
I would like to provide the links to a couple of our recently published articles so you may see the style and formatting typical of our journal.
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
Dr. Lisseth Tovar
From: Dr. Lisseth Tovar, M.D. <email@example.com>
Date: 2016-10-06 02:27:48.143
To: "Dr. "
Subject: Update to Dr. 's article?
Dear Dr. ,
Hopefully, the email reaches you well. I am glad to contact you about a scientific paper you published - " ". I would like to thank you for publishing this, it was interesting to read. I am hoping to discuss with you an opportunity to publish a follow-up article or a review in one of the Internal Medicine Review's issues. I think any new work you have done in this field would be of interest to our readers. It may be a short article, however you would be welcome to include any co-authors or students that may be able to collaborate.
If you have continued research in this area I would certainly like to learn more about your current work. If you need any assistance in determining 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 regarding this possibility?
Dr. Lisseth Tovar, M. D.
Internal Medicine Review
This email and any attachments sent with it are confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not read, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or at 712 H Street #1018 Washington DC 20002 USA. If you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
PubMed also contains for example 7 papers which have been published in the ornithological journal "The Ibis" ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22The%20Ibis%22%5BJournal%5D ).
The Ibis (or Ibis) is a highly respected journal within the field of ornithology (the study of birds). It is published since 1859. All 7 papers in PubMed report ornithological topics. The Ibis is the official journal of the British Ornithologists’ Union https://www.bou.org.uk/about-the-bou/ The Ibis is currently published by Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1474-919X
I see that Common Ground Publishing is changing their name to Common Ground Research Networks, why is that?
For a literature review, I would care more about the quality of the article itself (particularly in a systematic review in which quality is one of the criteria) and not the quality of the publisher or the journal. Although I agree that the quality of articles in predatory journals is likely to be low that doesn't mean one cannot find good papers in them at all- especially if good researchers fell into the trap set by the journal.
The first recommendation of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which I'm sure you've heard of is:
"Do not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion or funding decisions."
I think this should also apply to the decision of whether or not to include an article in a systematic review.
I am not seeing that.