Articles on this Page
- 10/28/16--16:38: _Comment on Journal ...
- 10/28/16--16:45: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/28/16--16:55: _Comment on Appeals ...
- 10/28/16--17:11: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/28/16--17:21: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/28/16--17:25: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/28/16--17:26: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/28/16--17:35: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/28/16--17:44: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/29/16--02:04: _Comment on Reviewer...
- 10/29/16--06:45: _Comment on Journal ...
- 10/29/16--07:58: _Comment on Reviewer...
- 10/30/16--04:33: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/30/16--08:11: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/30/16--08:50: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/30/16--09:00: _Comment on Reviewer...
- 10/30/16--09:03: _Comment on Reviewer...
- 10/30/16--09:37: _Comment on Reviewer...
- 10/30/16--09:39: _Comment on Reviewer...
- 10/30/16--10:11: _Comment on Reviewer...
- 10/28/16--16:55: Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
Please see <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/" target="_blank">here</a>.
I cannot compare two journals, especially journals outside my own field. I limit my work to identifying low-quality and predatory journals. Congratulations on getting your article accepted in <em>BBA Gene Regulatory Mechanisms</em>, which is not a predatory journal.
http://www.itiis.org = KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems = This journal is not on my list at this time.
http://www.ssrn.com/en/ = This is not a publisher of scholarly open-access journals, so it’s out of scope for my work.
http://sci-int.com = I cannot access this website.
Yes, <em>Medico Research Chronicles</em> (Medrech) is included on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank">here</a>. I recommend you avoid it.
This <em><a href="http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-clinical-virology" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Journal of Clinical Virology</a></em> is not a predatory journal and is not on my list.
Can you send a link? It is difficult to know for sure which journal you mean, as this phrase is very common.
Its publisher, Inderscience, is not on my list.
However, this is a subscription publisher. Does your library subscribe to this journal? I think very few libraries subscribe, so if you publish here, your work will be largely hidden.
I recommend that you do not use ResearchGate as a source of scholarly metrics information.
the publisher Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is on my list, and I strongly advise you to avoid this publishers journals. Do not send any papers to them. Please find a better publisher for your work.
This journal is published by Scholarlink Resource Centre Limited. I have this publisher included on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank">here</a>. I recommend you <strong>not </strong>send any papers to this journal.
MDPI is not on my list at this time, but it was in the past. It’s an expensive publisher. If possible, I would recommend that you find a stronger publisher for your work.
Those reviews are not far from these:
[…] citation royalty scheme? Jeffrey Beall has the […]
ResearchGate is not a Publisher. It does not have any journals. So, of course it is not included in Beall’s list!
It’s not on my list. It’s not an open-access publisher.
Does your library subscribe to any of its journals? Mine does not. I think relatively few libraries subscribe.
I would suggest you find a stronger publisher, with more visible journals, for your work.
Dear Prof. Bell
One of my article published in “International Journal of Advanced Research” (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 487-497. Someone said-This journal is fake. Is it true? Please comment-about this Journal.
A S M Kamruzzaman
In my opinion, this is a predatory journal, and all researchers should avoid it completely. I have it included on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank">here</a>.
Researchgate is a spammer and it should be considered as such.
They gather and sell users’ profiles without their permission.
To appear “popular”, Researchgate adds articles from people who do not wish to appear in their spamming gate!
This is unethical practice. Gathering money by advertisement and on the back of users should be shameful.
ISSN is not a prerequisite for a journal or book.
ISSN and DOI are just new means of gathering money from people, particulalry DOI (as ISSN is generally free, but indirectly money is gathered, too).
Josh Herr wrote on 28 October 2016 at https://twitter.com/number_three/status/792077148219506688 and at https://twitter.com/number_three/status/792076699303194624 :
“I quit reviewing for @FrontiersIn after receiving nasty email from an editor saying my review discouraged future submissions from authors.”
“I try to always be an understanding and nice reviewer, but I refuse to rubber stamp manuscripts (i.e. those in @FrontiersIn).”
I wouldn’t be so cynical about standard identifiers here. As a librarian, I can tell you that standard identifiers (DOI, ISBN, ISSN, ORCID) have great value and enable high search precision a recall, enabling high-quality information retrieval. They also enable the calculation of scholarly metrics.
What are the real values such identifiers would add to the identified materials?
I’m sure that you are well aware that many journals have been operating for decades – some of them for centuries – without any of these identifiers.
I do not see how a virtual identifier could make a manuscript or a book or a journal more valuable than others.
If you have the best identifiers possible but the content of your material is mediocre, what values identifiers would add to it? Inversly, you can have good ideas, good content, etc but without any identifier.
DOI, for example, applies annual and individual fees for papers but for nothing in return because journal publishers should keep their journals/manuscripts alive, otherwise the DOI identifiers won’t work at all!
You just throw your money by the window by assigning DOI.
For ORCID, it looks like Researchgate that has been transformed into a black market of frauds, money and ads. Nothing else worthy.
Take a look at Researchgate and you will see it by yourself: starting from the profiles’ pictures, many senior and old guys put their pictures when they were young or “teenager” while now they have 70 ans!
Many guys add whatever tables, figures, dataset, posters, etc., and they are all counted as publications. Try it yourself and upload whatever you want and it will increase your publication record substantially!
Without talking about the same paper that could be added by more than one coauthor, so it will be counted as many times as it is added by the different coauthors.
You can upload any kind of documents (picture, excel, word, etc.) and it will appear in your profile as a new publication.
You can easily have 100 publications in your profiles by uploading anything you want, whatever you want.
How, then, can you eventually trust identifiers issued from such a so-called “company”?
It is a “GarbageGate” or “SpamGate” or “FraudGate”, nothing more.