Articles on this Page
- 11/14/16--10:12: _Comment on More Que...
- 11/14/16--12:29: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 11/14/16--14:52: _Comment on Reviewer...
- 11/15/16--09:07: _Comment on Spammers...
- 11/15/16--09:15: _Comment on Spammers...
- 11/15/16--09:25: _Comment on Spammers...
- 11/15/16--09:35: _Comment on Spammers...
- 11/15/16--10:15: _Comment on Spammers...
- 11/15/16--11:37: _Comment on Spammers...
- 11/15/16--12:16: _Comment on Spammers...
- 11/15/16--12:22: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 11/15/16--13:10: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 11/15/16--15:30: _Comment on Spammers...
- 11/16/16--03:34: _Comment on Three Ne...
- 11/16/16--03:37: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 11/16/16--04:23: _Comment on Appeals ...
- 11/16/16--04:30: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 11/16/16--04:34: _Comment on Appeals ...
- 11/16/16--06:27: _Comment on Spammers...
- 11/16/16--06:35: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 11/14/16--10:12: Comment on More Questionable Articles from MDPI by wkdawson
- 11/15/16--12:22: Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by tiger
- 11/16/16--03:37: Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Evans Gyan
- 11/16/16--04:23: Comment on Appeals by mis
- 11/16/16--04:34: Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
I would narrow the considerations to the following questions. (1) is the work potentially useful information for other people to use (i.e., should it be published somewhere because it is _useful_ information), and (2) is the work done in good faith. It seems from your comments that your answer to both those questions is “yes”.
The MDPI journals are peer-reviewed, a repository is not. Moreover, in my experience with peer review, one of the best peer review jobs I had came from an obscure OA journal and one of the poorest peer review jobs I had came from a subscription access (SA) journal. The rest were evenly spread. What you most want is quality feedback from the peer reviewers. Whether OA or SA, you can find reviewers who are politicians or don’t take their job seriously. So, it is the luck of the draw on that.
There is plenty of research that would be good to know, but is difficult to find. Perhaps this is because of the attitudes like insisting that only the thing that are purportedly “new” are worthy of publication in SA journals. It surely encourages people to hype their work with lots of balderdash rather than just write what they did and what they found and let other people decide if it is worth anything. As a researcher, there have been many times that I needed information and could not find it anywhere. Is it because of reasons that you cite, that some editor or reviewer considered it “incremental” or “insignificant”. Should _useful_ research be wasted like that?
It is also important to reflect that research is also sometime the luck of the draw. Sometimes a project turns out to have low lying fruit that quickly yields a publication in PNAS, but it can also be largely a project that yields thistles and thorns even when it seemed like it was a good project at the inception. If the student has the tenacity to stick to the work diligently for 5 years and managed to get something useful from it, it actually may say a lot more about the student than the person who was fortunate enough to catch the low lying fruit the first time. Should the reward go only to those who get lucky and are blessed, or should it also go to those who are persistent and tenacious? Over all, good science is generally the product of persistence and tenacity and lucky breaks are not to be expected in my opinion. You might find the book “Fooled by Randomness” a useful perspective here.
The remaining issue is the journals themselves. Obviously, it is better not to sell yourself short. I don’t know what to recommend here. Career wise, getting lucky the first time opens lots of doors, but a career is a life long journey, and I would say that what is more important is what you actually _do? in that life. I think that it is unfortunate that administrators base their decisions on trivial metrics like impact factor. Some of the greatest works were published in obscure journals, and even Einstein, the icon of great discoveries, published his work at a time when the Annals of Physics did not even have any peer review. Does that make Annals of Physics a “repository”? Work should be judged based on reading the papers, not these false measuring scales.
[…] Beal gathers information on predatory open access publishers and journals. If you are ever unsure, double-check before submitting your paper. Better yet, start with a list of reputable open access journals in your field, such as the one […]
You seem really upset about these identifiers and social media platforms. I see them as merely tools to share research (rather than measures of quality).
Identifiers, such as DOI, ISBN and ORCID, simply make it easier for your work to be found and therefore more likely to be read. They do not make the articles or chapters intrinsically better, but they allow them to be more accessible.
Social media platforms, like ResearchGate and Academia, do the same. They make it easier to share research. By posting preprints (or copies of hard to find chapters), even people without institutional access to academic journals or books can read your work.
I have been on several hiring committees, but I do not know any serious academic who thinks that the number of publications (or citations) according to ResearchGate are valid measures of research quantity (or quality).
“The spammers ask that the summaries be written for “someone at an average IQ,” fitting, perhaps, for Sweden.”
Uh. What does this mean? This is the second thing you’ve posted implying that there’s some sort of institutional dumbing-down in Sweden.
Here's another one: <em>Impact</em> from <a href="https://impact.pub/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Science Impact Ltd</a>.
Ugh. I heard the institutions do press releases for free (provided that the work isn’t complete trash), and then the authors get emails from crackpots. : )
This means that press releases for the US readers, starting Jan 20, will sound like “A tremendous achievement by the best US scientists! They had the best knowledge and got huge results, because, really, they have the best ability, believe me.”
Reblogged this on <a href="https://kenmitton.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/spammers-invite-researchers-to-pay-to-advertise-their-research/" rel="nofollow">Ken Mitton, PhD FARVO</a>.
I couldn’t find the cost of these “services” listed on the company websites. I couldn’t find any information about the number and demographics of visitors to the websites. This information should be important to those who will consider advertising their research project.
As part of my work, I must regularly look at press releases from universities that are designed to announce research findings to the media. Releases from some universities are excellent. However, most are awful, completely failed attempts to convey science to the public.
Given that a researcher wants to broadly publicize her/his work (many do not) there might be a market for a company that collaborates with a researcher to write a good press release. Do these and similar companies provide that service? The items on their public websites suggest that someone was a good-enough writer to make complex material more accessible. I didn’t spend more than a few moments when scanning the websites and the first summary pages may not represent the quality of other parts of the sites.
I believe there’s a not so obvious danger here. Most decent research institutions and universities tend to do press releases on publications in what’s considered “top journals,” so at least there’s hope that what you’re publicizing has gone through peer review.
Here, however, not only you are able to publish in one of the “journals” this blog deals with, but also pay for widely releasing it to the public. This includes perpetual motion machines, efficacy of homeopathic medicine, the effects of Whatsapp messenger on students in Ghana, end of the world from imaginary asteroids and cellphone radiation, etc, etc.
Anything and everything can thus be claimed, as long as you pay for making it widely read. Since one cannot expect journalists to effectively perform peer review, there is definitely reason to worry, especially, given last week’s election results (along with the early appointments) and what they could mean for education and scientific progress. This isn’t to start a panic, but certainly something to think about.
may you please check if this journal is aunthentic http://www.ijbsac.org/
It is not authentic. In fact, I think it’s completely bogus. Please do not send any papers to this journal.
<i>The Atlas of Science is not transparent about where it is based, except to say that its run by a company called AoS Nordic AB</i>
The company is Swedish, based in <a href="https://www.hitta.se/aos+nordic+ab/gustavsberg/xWsv1bJKeu" rel="nofollow">a nice suburban house in Stockholm</a>. Two of the three company directors seem to have day jobs in <a href="http://www.lindqvistgroup.org/?page_id=33" rel="nofollow">a laboratory within the Karolinska Institute</a>.
It’s not a predatory journal.
How about these journals: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED COMPUTER SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS-http://thesai.org/Publications/CallForPaper?code=IJACSA
and ACS Applied Computer Science – http://www.acs.pollub.pl/index.php/home.html. Are they authentic?
Dear Beal, Is STM Journals reputable publisher? And What about Research & Reviews: Journal of Herbal Science (RRJHS) under this publisher? My third question is that how can someone withdraw a publication from a fake journal and submit to a legitimate journal?
The <em>International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications</em> (IJACSA) is published by a company called The Science and Information (SAI) Organization Limited. I have this publisher on my <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank">list </a>and recommend against submitting work to all of its journals (or attending its conferences).
The second journal you mention is not on my list at this time.
STM Journals is a subscription publisher (not open-access), and I haven’t considered it for my list. Does your library subscribe to any of its journals? Mine certainly doesn’t, and in general, I don’t recommend publishing in subscription journals that only a few libraries subscribe to, for you would be essentially hiding your work.
I wish I had an easy answer to your final question, but I do not.
Vanity presses: they have already been described at hilarious length in Umberto Eco’s “Foucault’s pendulum”. Except the transition from print to electronic, nothing new here.
I find this journal to be borderline. It has some problems. I am not adding it to my list today.