- RSS Channel Showcase 9045142
- RSS Channel Showcase 6824802
- RSS Channel Showcase 9897604
- RSS Channel Showcase 3730999
Articles on this Page
- 11/12/16--03:25: _Comment on Three Ne...
- 11/12/16--04:23: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 11/12/16--08:32: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 11/12/16--16:50: _Comment on Two OA J...
- 11/12/16--18:14: _Comment on Three Ne...
- 11/13/16--04:23: _Comment on Appeals ...
- 11/13/16--05:00: _Comment on Appeals ...
- 11/13/16--05:26: _Comment on Appeals ...
- 11/13/16--05:37: _Comment on Appeals ...
- 11/13/16--05:43: _Comment on Appeals ...
- 11/13/16--06:42: _Comment on Three Ne...
- 11/13/16--07:48: _Comment on Three Ne...
- 11/13/16--10:25: _Comment on Three Ne...
- 11/14/16--02:38: _Comment on About Th...
- 11/14/16--03:05: _Comment on Does Eve...
- 11/14/16--03:58: _Comment on More Que...
- 11/14/16--04:09: _Comment on About Th...
- 11/14/16--04:11: _Comment on More Que...
- 11/14/16--04:16: _Comment on Does Eve...
- 11/14/16--05:31: _Comment on More Que...
- 11/12/16--04:23: Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Hema Bobbu
- 11/13/16--04:23: Comment on Appeals by aetimas
- 11/13/16--05:00: Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
- 11/13/16--05:26: Comment on Appeals by aetimas
- 11/13/16--05:37: Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
- 11/13/16--05:43: Comment on Appeals by aetimas
- 11/14/16--03:58: Comment on More Questionable Articles from MDPI by Laco
- 11/14/16--04:11: Comment on More Questionable Articles from MDPI by Jeffrey Beall
- 11/14/16--05:31: Comment on More Questionable Articles from MDPI by Laco
Sorry, I limit my work to identifying low-quality and predatory journals and publishers and cannot recommend good journals.
is international journal of advanced engineering management and sciences, IJAEMS is a good journal
In my opinion, no. I have this journal included on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank">here</a>. I recommend against sending any papers to this predatory journal.
Craigs details about Brigham Young University, USA, can be found at Academia https://byu.academia.edu/CraigHassapakis Here Craig fraudulently claims authorship (Authors = Craig Hassapakis + 1) on this article https://www.academia.edu/9858907/Amphibian_declines_in_the_twenty-first_century_Why_we_need_assisted_reproductive_technologies that he had nothing to do with.
I am sure that he has not got copyright approval for several articles on this site.
I once sent Craig a final journal proof of one of my articles in confidence and then found it uploaded onto a website by Craig.
Seems to be an increasing technique of some to use the Internet to defame people with all sorts of fraudulent claims to gain popular support, then to also take others material to create a fraudulent persona.
I have downloaded academia site if anyone needs verification I will provide.
I think if are doing the weak and predatory journal list and ur independent plus transparent who stand for researcher u should have to work also on good one if not that will put it so called blogiblogging value less be fair and inclusive for good and bad one!!
I am a student of Agricultural Engineering department in Bangladesh. I would like to know about finlogy publications where their impact factor is 3.75 and have ISSN no. as I have already got approbation but not paid my fees. How it is possible to me not to submit my paper where I see their high impact factor and ISSN registration.
Would you please kindly show some reasons for its fakeness?
Finlogy is a completely fake publisher and you should not publish your work in its journal.
It does not really have an impact factor.
Having an ISSN is not a mark of quality.
Thanks for your kind information. Sir, I have already fill up the copyright form with signature which was the requirement to review my paper. Will it affected my paper while submitting it in another journal?
Thanks again. If you please help me by named some good publishers for Agricultural field.
Yes, if you transferred your copyright to a publisher, then you must get the copyright transferred back to you before you can submit the paper to another publisher.
Sir, but if they refused to do so , then what can I do?Please, help me by giving some authentic publishers for Agriculture.
Thank you; I agree. I have added this publisher, Nessa Publishers (NP), to my list.
How about this publisher? http://www.academypublication.com/journals.html
I'm not sure if it's on the list due to a couple of publisher websites being blocked by my uni.
This publisher is not on my list at this time.
Dear Dr. Beall,
thank you for the list and what it does. I have some thoughts on it myself, since I teach biology in India to Undergraduates and have cited you in the past (1). Currently I am writing to confirm that Dr. Lisseth Tovar (reminds me of the girl with the dragon tattoo) contacted me with a well crafted email with all the right content from before and some publication entered. Some interesting "if you haven't published a followup" parts were added. And then I got a followup email. Something like harassing internship emails that I am more used to.
Keep up the good work, and we hope to hear you in person in India sometime.
Hi Jeffrey Beall,
This is a good post as ever. I have set up some of my students at an Indian science institute to investigate these guys further, as a part of the scientific writing course I teach. To possibly answer your question, which you might not necessarily have wanted answered (my prof said that to me once) "Does Everyone in India Want to be a Scholarly Publisher?", turns out not really. But Everyone in India who is in engineering colleges (1,500,000 engineers get degrees per year)  now needs to 'show research output'. There are recent efforts to do what you are doing, on an "official platform"- the agency accrediting (and de-accrediting) universities and colleges has set up some sort of a mission to identify "predatory publishers". Maybe it's time our guys talk to some of your folks. Because we have science to lose here!
And for those who use the fig-leaf of their nation to abuse you (and I think there are many of those all over the world), I pity them for not having seen the point. Get an education folks!
"MDPI chiefly serves as a place to publish manuscripts that were rejected from stronger publishers"
Well, per se a valuable undertaking :)
Because, who has nowadays time to send an article there and back again for months, possibly for years? Especially in a situation where you are in dire need of publishing (e.g., as a prerequisite for PhD graduation). Does it necessarily mean the content & form of the publication are altogether poor quality?
I don't think so.
As for myself, I have never published anything in OA journals, but currently I am considering to send an article to an MDPI journal, quite an established one. I would never, of course, send it to a really fraudulent journal.
The article itself is no "high science" but a solid average. A "good article of trade", one might say. If I had time (half a year at least, let's say) I would probably be able to place it in an average journal with a lower impact factor (and save my institution's money). But since my PhD student who is the principal contributor to this article must submit his PhD thesis (together with 2 research articles in impacted journals) by the end of March, this would be too risky as he could be expelled for exceeding his study time and lose 5 years of work for nothing. The rules here (an Eastern EU state) are set like this and even if I consider them ridiculous, I cannot change them.
So what to do? The "professional prestige" is not the only thing to be taken into account.
So. for you and your student, MDPI is more like a repository than a scholarly publisher, no?
I predict that the peer review reports you receive from MDPI will ask you to revise the paper to cite earlier papers published in MDPI journals.
Well said. Thank you.
In some sense, maybe... But I would not say ONLY a repository. Of course I want to communicate the results of my work as well. The article, as I've mentioned, is not really bad, it does report solid research, but not "sensational breakthroughs". Alas, the latter are more in demand by the journals, quite understandably, as they help to boost their impact factors. Out research, for the most part, falls into the category of "incremental research", as they call it. Nevertheless, I don't think it's useless or "bad science". I am convinced this type of research is necessary to achieve any real breakthroughs in the future and by far the largest part of the scientific knowledge of the mankind consists exactly of such contributions.
At the very least, it does not provide fake results, as many of the articles today do, especcially from certain countries which I am not going to name here. Let's say, when I see many of the articles publishing results on bioactivity of new compounds, I can see immediately there is something fishy about them. You don't need to check the measurements experimentally, it is sufficient to work with the same category of substances long enough. I might of course be mistaken in some cases and the results just might be genuine, only why do they come always from the same (few) countries?
Why am I almost never able to reproduce the results on bioactivity even when I try? Even in the rare cases when I am able to reproduced the synthesis of the target compounds. Am I really so bad at this?
What I want to say is: people which have no moral or professional restraints to "embellish" their newly prepared compounds with great biological/pharmacological activities get a kind of "comparative advantage", which makes it for the others even more difficult to push through their research (in consequence discredited as "incremental research").
In my opinion, the main problem is the recent flood of low quality research, or even fake research, especially from "threshold countries". And where there is demand there is also supply. You cannot check the research results "by hand". Even the best peer-review process examines basically only the more formal criteria, in reality it is almost impossible to check the genuinity of the submitted work, not in these numbers.