- RSS Channel Showcase 1697991
- RSS Channel Showcase 1611497
- RSS Channel Showcase 1700596
- RSS Channel Showcase 5521854
Articles on this Page
- 10/24/16--06:33: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/24/16--09:04: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/24/16--09:54: _Comment on David Pu...
- 10/24/16--10:45: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/24/16--10:54: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/24/16--12:34: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/24/16--13:05: _Comment on Bogus Br...
- 10/24/16--13:50: _Comment on OMICS Go...
- 10/24/16--14:19: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/24/16--14:24: _Comment on OMICS Pu...
- 10/24/16--19:04: _Comment on Don’t Us...
- 10/25/16--00:25: _Comment on Predator...
- 10/25/16--04:27: _Comment on Scam Pub...
- 10/25/16--04:33: _Comment on Scam Pub...
- 10/25/16--09:13: _Comment on OMICS Gr...
- 10/25/16--09:31: _Comment on Journal ...
- 10/25/16--09:34: _Comment on Journal ...
- 10/25/16--12:19: _Comment on Journal ...
- 10/26/16--03:54: _Comment on Ongoing ...
- 10/26/16--05:28: _Comment on Proposed...
- 10/24/16--06:33: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Marco
- 10/24/16--10:45: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Ibrahim Adama
- 10/24/16--10:54: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Ibrahim Adama
- 10/24/16--12:34: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Jeffrey Beall
- 10/24/16--13:05: Comment on Bogus British Company “Accredits” OMICS Conferences by MC
- 10/24/16--14:19: Comment on Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist by Jeffrey Beall
- 10/26/16--03:54: Comment on Ongoing Questions about PLOS ONE’s Peer Review by Ioannis
Jeffrey said not to use PubMed as a whitelist, but you can do so with Medline. That is, do not automatically assume that journals included in PubMed are high quality, whereas you can quite safely assume that those in Medline are. This does not mean that journals that are not included in Medline are bad, just that you must do more due diligence when you wish to submit to such a journal than just check whether it is included in PubMed.
[…] that’s not the only concern: Gold Open Access has led to the emergence of predatory journals willing to publish anything for a fee, regardless of the quality of the research or the […]
What is the difference between these two journals?
I did not find Macrothink Institute's Journal Of Agricultural studies in your list. Can I trust thhis journal?
Journal of development effectiveness, Indian journal of plant protection, International Journal of Entomology Research, Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics and Sustainable agriculture research Canada. Can I trust any of these journals? Regards,
No. The publisher Macrothink is included on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank">here</a>.
Yes, google owns the internet. Finally, a reasonable comment on this blog.
So they refuse to refund me as they claimed. How can I sue them?
<em>Journal of Development Effectiveness</em> = not a predatory journal
<em>Indian Journal of Plant Protection</em> = outside the scope of my work (a subscription journal)
<em>International Journal of Entomology Research</em> = one of the journals published by ESci Journals Publishing, a publisher on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank">here</a>. I recommend avoiding all the journals from this publisher.
<em>Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics</em> = not a predatory journal
Sustainable agriculture research Canada = I think you mean <em>Sustainable Agriculture Research</em> published by the so-called Canadian Center of Science and Education. This publisher is on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank">here </a>and I recommend you avoid all its journals.
Please consult my lists:
Publishers = https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
Standalone journals = https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/
I made mistakes by registering their meetings and they never refund me. It is definitely a scam and scientists need to boycott them for sure.
<i>Baishideng ... have many editors</i>
Baishideng are spamming indiscriminately to recruit "senior scholars" / peer reviewers; and since they ask the potential recipients of this honoured title to submit a capsule biography and <b>a photograph</b>, I suspect that they're also upgrading the recipients to the title of "Editor" (without bothering to tell them).
Good day! Can somebody here tell me if the conferences organized by the Institute of Research Engineers and Scientist (The IRES) are true? Is IRES a legitimate/registered conference organizer?
Just go to website of Pulsus (www.pulsus.com), you will find few journals redirecting to Imedpub journals as well as Omics webpages.
Omics frequently changes the publication charges day by day. Some time it increases ans some time it get lesser. What actually the fee is?
Everything seems to be tampered and fraud.
I registered for a meeting then cancelled it. After three months they do not refund me, providing me fake email address and hang on my call. They simply break laws. They should be sued and push to be out of business.
It still boggles my mind that these journals can't be bothered to so much as pay a student of English a few quid to tidy up the language on their websites, out of self-interest and self-preservation if nothing else.
You are doing a wonderful job of exposing questionable journals. However, I want to draw your attention to 'conventional journals' that are not following 100% legit practices. For example, there has been increasing trend to 'promote' one journal over others by rejecting the articles for publication in the top ranked journals (with no obvious clues) and recommending them to transfer to the low ranked and controversial journals. These journals accept more than 65% of articles submitted. The equality of some of the articles that I read are of questionable quality. Some of the papers that were published in these journal are very controversial. Also in papers published in top notch journals, one can easily find blunders, lack of statistical analysis, and diametrically opposite conclusions drawn from the data presented. It makes you wonder whether the top notch journals who do not have an editorial board but only 'in house' editors do really review the papers. The point is that just because some journals have attained reputation (mostly true), the company is pushing people to publish in their other journals with questionable quality. People buy this logic as they think that some day the other journals also will increase their impact factor. This is purely a business tactic but it impacts the scientific community. This kind of tactic should be discouraged.
Indeed, this a rapidly spreading cancer of academic publishing. It is collateral damage as these are typically open access pay to publish collateral channels.
Not same experience. Both me and the other reviewers had some doubts (largely overlapping) about the scope of one manuscript (from quite recognisable Authors I might add). Did not get published.
You need to decide for yourself if it’s worth attending an IAFOR conference. My main concern is that in Aug. 2015, before I contacted IAFOR with questions, their website stated that IAFOR: 1) was a “Non-Profit Organization” and 2) had an office in Hong Kong.
However, IAFOR conference participants pay registration fees to the for-profit IAFOR Limited Liability Corp. From 2010-2015, IAFOR’s main web page made no mention of the for-profit IAFOR LLC.
From 2010 to 2015, the website also claimed IAFOR had a Hong Kong office. The Hong Kong office address provided on IAFOR’s website was actually the location for a company called OCRA. Company registration documents show it was a virtual office for a separate company IAFOR Ltd. (Hong Kong).
After IAFOR became aware I was investigating them they changed the website. 1) It currently describes IAFOR as a "non-profit organization" with the following legal disclaimer: “IAFOR’s commercial activities are operated by a mission-driven social enterprise that underwrites the organization and funds non-profit and charitable activities.”
You can decide for yourself if this makes it clear whether IAFOR’s conferences are for-profit or non-profit.
2) Mention of the Hong Kong office was removed and someone started deregistering IAFOR Hong Kong Ltd.
I expect you’ll soon find several commentators who neglect to use their full, real names arriving to defend IAFOR.