Articles on this Page
- 12/29/16--10:45: _Comment on Conferen...
- 12/29/16--12:23: _Comment on Is It Ti...
- 12/29/16--13:51: _Comment on Is It Ti...
- 12/29/16--14:13: _Comment on Is It Ti...
- 12/29/16--18:34: _Comment on Hindawi’...
- 12/29/16--19:41: _Comment on Is It Ti...
- 12/30/16--00:56: _Comment on Hyderaba...
- 12/30/16--01:10: _Comment on Watch Ou...
- 12/29/16--23:10: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 12/30/16--01:05: _Comment on Is It Ti...
- 12/30/16--04:08: _Comment on Misleadi...
- 12/30/16--04:33: _Comment on Is It Ti...
- 12/30/16--04:34: _Comment on Misleadi...
- 12/30/16--04:53: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 12/30/16--06:05: _Comment on Is It Ti...
- 12/30/16--06:17: _Comment on Is It Ti...
- 12/30/16--06:17: _Comment on List of ...
- 12/30/16--06:21: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 12/30/16--06:57: _Comment on Misleadi...
- 12/30/16--08:16: _Comment on Is It Ti...
- 12/29/16--12:23: Comment on Is It Time to Retire ResearcherID? by Mr Hobbs
- 12/29/16--13:51: Comment on Is It Time to Retire ResearcherID? by davidl53
- 12/29/16--14:13: Comment on Is It Time to Retire ResearcherID? by Bonbon
- 12/29/16--19:41: Comment on Is It Time to Retire ResearcherID? by David Stern
- 12/30/16--01:05: Comment on Is It Time to Retire ResearcherID? by Alia Sadiq
- 12/30/16--04:08: Comment on Misleading Metrics by Partharamanujam
- 12/30/16--04:33: Comment on Is It Time to Retire ResearcherID? by Jeffrey Beall
- 12/30/16--04:34: Comment on Misleading Metrics by Jeffrey Beall
- 12/30/16--06:05: Comment on Is It Time to Retire ResearcherID? by John
- 12/30/16--06:17: Comment on Is It Time to Retire ResearcherID? by CB
- 12/30/16--06:17: Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall
- 12/30/16--06:57: Comment on Misleading Metrics by Ernest
Conferences were somewhat useful in the past when there were no means to disseminate knowledge so that participants could exchange their knowledge and ideas. Now, with ubiquitously accessible Internet, conferences are organized mostly for tourism and for picking up money from attendees.
If labs keep their money to renew their materials and for recruiting new staff, it would be more useful than to spending a lot of money for almost nothing in return.
If you say that "Clarivate Analytics, is not maintaining the integrity of the ResearcherID database" - what will then happen to Journal Citation Index (aka ISI) in the future? Perhaps one day OMICS and Co. simply buy the real impact factors instead of faking them...money rules the world. And science will be completely busted.
ORCID has potential but I struggle to understand the organization's priorities. Today, a search on my first and last name brings 19 results. 12 of these have no additional information that could be used to disambiguate one from the other. Only 5 of these (my record included) provide any information useful for disambiguation. I'm disappointed that the ORCID identification string isn't useful for indexing.
Further, The ORCID ID is a subset of the ISNI author database. However, ORCID did not allow me to register with my ISNI number. So, now, I have two identifiers within the ISNI record format.
ORCID discourages multiple registrations under the same name. However I know someone who has three ORCID IDs. She didn't make note of her earlier ID and the ORCID interface didn't make it easy to know which of the more than 30 ORCID records with her name so, to submit a manuscript, she simply registered again. (I pointed out that she could have looked up her publication and found her ID but she didn't think of that.
Another problem is that the system to enter publication metadata allows free-text entry and entering structured metadata isn't really possible. The system for metadata entry is still (after several years) so unfriendly that one stray character outside a field closes the entire entry box and data entry must begin again.
ORCID membership is expensive and there are many powerful supporters. Unless my arithmetic skills fail, the annual budget is quite large. Yet, it is clear from their staff list that their emphasis is not on LIS because of the 20 employees only one has a LIS degree and her job description doesn't include much other than web design and user interface work for connecting with WordPress and Drupal.
My organization was an ORCID launch partner. I had high hopes for its success. I still have hopes but those have been tempered by my experience. I have offered not only suggestions about fixing problems but also the programming time to implement the solutions. I volunteered to serve on advisory committees but was told that the current ORCID priorities -- improving the interface with ResearcherID, Scopus, and CrossRef -- are not in line with mine (which were structured metadata, duplicate work identification and record merging, alignment with the ISNI database, and protections against authors with duplicate ORCID IDs. I offered that, because I was offering actual code, not merely suggestions, that their priorities and my improvements were quite compatible.
ResearcherID is dead. ORCID killed it.
It should be retired (for reasons completely unrelated to predatory journals). It just doesn't serve any purpose anymore.
[…] one would think those publishers are the most profitable. Not exactly, at least according to this blog post from 2013, proclaiming that the OA Hindawi Publishing Corporation “has a impressive profit […]
Researcher ID provides an author citation profile based on the Web of Science. But it could certainly be improved.
Why you are blaming entire city (Hyderabad) ???? any logic behind this ???
123 journals were not enough... I just received an invitation to submit to the "Journal of Medical Research and Health Education" and it was not on the list above. I checked their list of journals and, in addition to the 123 above, new journals popped.
Their catalogue now contains 46 new journal titles, not only in medicine but also in engineering or physics; the “Med” of iMed publishing now stands for ‘medley’, apparently. Note that their own list of journals is not exhaustive, and certain titles (like the Journal of Medical Research and Health Education) are hosted somewhere on their website while not on the list (http://www.imedpub.com/journals.php).
The new titles that I discovered were, in alphabetical order:
- Advanced Techniques in Clinical Microbiology
- Advances in Applied Science Research
- Advances in kidney Diseases and Treatment
- American Journal of Advanced Drug Delivery
- American Journal of Computer Science and Engineering Survey
- American Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology (the “Med” of iMed publishing now stands for ‘medley’ and not ‘medical’, apparently)
- American Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics
- American Journal of Ethnomedicine
- American Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics
- American Journal of Phytomedicine and Clinical Therapeutics
- Archives in Chemical Research
- Asian Journal of Plant Science & Research
- British Biomedical Bulletin
- British Journal of Research
- Der Chemica Sinica
- Der Pharmacia Sinica
- European Journal of Experimental Biology
- Farmacologia y Toxicologia
- Global Journal of Digestive Diseases
- Global Journal of Research and Review
- Insights in Allergy, Asthma & Bronchitis (apparently replacing Insights in Allergy #35)
- Insights in Pharma Research
- Insights in Reproductive Medicine
- International Journal of Applied Science - Research and Review
- Journal of Animal Research and Nutrition (apparently replacing Journal of Animal Nutrition #55)
- Journal of Animal Sciences and Livestock Production
- Journal of Clinical & Experimental Orthopaedics
- Journal of Clinical and Molecular Pathology (similar but not equal to the Journal of Cellular & Molecular Pathology #59 from the same publisher)
- Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
- Journal of Clinical Medicine and Therapeutics
- Journal of Dental and Craniofacial Research
- Journal of Diabetes Research and Endocrinology
- Journal of Geriatric Medicine Research
- Journal of Heart Health and Circulation
- Journal of Hepatitis
- Journal of Hospital & Medical Management
- Journal of Medical Research and Health Education
- Journal of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology
- Journal of Sinusitis and Migraine
- Journal of Stem Cell Biology and Transplantation
- Journal of Surgery and Emergency Medicine
- Journal of Translational Neurosciences
- Journal of Universal Surgery (maybe replacing Universal Surgery #122)
- Pharmaceutical Biotechnology: Current Research
- Prosthetics and Orthotics Open Journal
- Synthesis and Catalysis: Open Access
Dear Prof. I saw a journal on your predatory list for 2015 but does not appear on the list for 2016. Could you have cleared it by your criteria? It is international journal for agricultural management and development.(IJAMAD)
Dear Respected Jeffery , can you please help me to find if these conference is authentic one
GBC 2017- medical biotechnology
As a researcher and a reviewing editor of a few international journals, I find your posts on Scholarly Open Access extremely useful. Thank you very much indeed for your service to academic publishing.
I would be grateful for information about Cosmos Impact Factor, which you have listed as a questionable impact-factor company. Is it possible to provide more information?
I think this one is highly questionable. It's run by Eureka Conferences, the same people who own Bentham Open and Bentham Science, based in Pakistan. So, we have a Pakistan-based organization that I have documented has published a lot of junk over the years now organizing an expensive, broad, biotechnology conference in expensive Boston. Don't go. There are many better options. This conference is all about profit for the owners in Pakistan.
Cosmos Impact Factor is a completely fake metric. The only authentic IF is the one supplied by Thomson Reuters / Clarivate Analytics. Don't be fooled. Cosmos is an imposter.
Check the title. The <em>International Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Management and Development</em> (IJAMAD) is still on my list.
Could you please tell me what would be the advantage of ORCID against Scopus ID? Good and motivated researchers could refine their Scopus ID by cooperating the Scopus team and manage to have an ID which shows citation, h-index, etc.
ORCID is not a non-for-profit organisation since it charge alot for subscription.
It looks to me that since bogus publishers, bogus indexes, bogus researcher's IDs, and bogus conference organizers are making it increasingly difficult to single out "good" journals and conferences, bona fide researchers all over the world will need to use increasing time and effort in order to tell them apart. Such time and effort will be subtracted to proper research activities. Looks like a good way to undermine - at least to some extent - proper research that is being carried out worldwide, while cashing in handsome profits in the process. Perhaps I'm just becoming paranoid...
I have this journal's publisher, Asian Publication Corporation (Asian Pub. Corp.), on my list and recommend against publishing in its journals, including the one you mention.
I have this journal included on my <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank">list </a>here and recommend against submitting papers to it. Don't be fooled by this journal's clever and spiffy website. This broad-scoped journal only wants to accept as many papers as possible so it can earn much profit. Please find a serious, respected journal for your work. This one is merely a pharmaceutical vanity press.
Dear Jeffrey, thank you so much for your work. Highly appreciated.
[…] Is It Time to Retire ResearcherID? Jeffrey Beall […]