Quantcast
Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog



Channel Description:

Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing

older | 1 | .... | 533 | 534 | (Page 535) | 536 | 537 | .... | 541 | newer

    0 0

    It used to be open-access, and it used to be on my list. Then they changed their publishing model to toll-access and asked me to remove them from the list, and I did.

    Recently, I have been receiving several inquiries about them each week. Why is this? Have they been spamming again?


    0 0

    Thank you!

    I just got an email from them, and at first I was exited, but being an unsolicited contact, I was suspicious.
    So I just searched: Nova Publishers Scam, and your article came up first on Google.

    This saved me wasted time, and probably a lot of money!


    0 0

    Dr Kateryna is still at it. I am really getting sick of these sorts of phone requests. I get several a day.

    Dear Dr. Dr. Graves,

    I hope you are enjoying the start of the new year. We were in contact a few months ago about your paper entitled “Avian sex, sex chromosomes, and dosage compensation in the age of genomics”. I wanted to check-in with you again about the possibility of publishing a followup/update to this paper in one of the next issues of the Medical Research Archives. I still think that such an article could be of much interest to our readers and am hoping that you are in a better position to write something now that the new year is starting. The length of the article and timing of submission are flexible. If there is any way I can assist in making this happen please do not hesitate to ask.

    Would you be available to proceed with this in the next 2-3 months?

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Kateryna Bielka, M. D.
    Senior Editor
    Medical Research Archives
    http://www.journals.ke-i.org/mra


    0 0

    At the v out set CONGRATES for doing such thing..I really appreciate ua effort…bt may I knw the standard of International journal for social sciences and humanities. Is is reffered or predatory???
    with regards


    0 0

    […] I keep getting emails from these scam artists. […]


    0 0

    I have to repeat my earlier statement. In my book, Nova Science Publisher does not belong to the list of publishers to avoid per se. Soliciting contributions is not necessarily spamming but the normal business way to attract potential authors. I suggest to remove this publisher from your list of dishonor.

    Prof. Dr. Robert B. Heimann


    0 0

    You’re confused. The publisher is not on my list.


    0 0

    I have both being an author and also editor of a special issue on the MDPI journal “Polymers” and also author and editorial board member of several “traditiona” journals. The papers I received on the MDPI journa lwere of good quality and my experience with this journal is as positive as that related by Dr Chauhuduri and Dr Dettman above. I followed personally all papers, I suggested the corrrect examiners, I rejected some papers and the ones I accepted were all high quality, and often went through three rounds of revisions (It is the only point I am not too happy about MDPI journals, and I told them so, as it is too long, stressful and makes for a lot of work). I had furthermore the experience that one of the papers I presented to the same Special Issue resorted of a different academic editor, as for reason of honesty I could not be the academic editor of myself, and the paper was rejected. I did no agree with the rejection, of course, and I published it afterwards on a reputable journal of a “traditional” publisher (Wiley). It showed that the refereeing was equally strict for the OA journal that for other traditional journals.
    I suggest to all the people that have left negative comments above to stop “squawqing” like they are offended, one starts to think they moan because they have a hidden agenda. Traditional publishers are equally predatory, only in a different way: if you want to get a paper from them you got to pay. Equally predatory because traditional publishers too needs to make profits if they want to remain afloat.
    I agree there are bad Publisher, but MDPI I have found Professional nd efficient
    So concentrate on good science rather than to lose yourself in useless discussions.


    0 0

    Another satisfied customer. I understand that people are happy when they finally find a publisher that will accept and publish their papers. The publisher is happy too, for they generate much revenue from such customers.


    0 0

    The traditional publishers too. Publishing is about science but to ANY publisher it is purely about business.


    0 0

    Morover Sir, I have so many publication with “traditional” publishers that I am able to judge what a journal is worth. I do not need MDPI , as between Springer, Wiley, Elsevier and others I have more than 700 publications, of which only 3 with MDPI. No need to be flippant about ‘another satidsfied customer’….


    0 0

    I entered “Biospectracal” into “Google Translate” (within “Detect language”). Nothing shows up except “Biospectracal” again. What does the suggested alternative spelling “Biospectacle” add to our understanding? Can anyone find a dictionary definition of this re-spelled term? Explanations, anyone?


    0 0

    […] Standalone Journal is One of the Worst-Ever Open-Access Journals Jeffrey Beall […]


    0 0

    It seems so funny to me how their tactics ‘evolve’; the temptation is to say this is the cleverest one yet, however even the cleverest ones still have a fundamental stupidity to them that makes them laughable. In this case (as in so many cases) the whole thing is undone by their random selecting of a title of work that is totally unrelated to even the generalistic nature of the journal. Indeed l love the irony of the chosen work in your quoted spam, an article that is in fact about the pernicious impact of predatory publishing!

    I laugh because I myself am regularly subject to these mails. I have yet to receive one of this specific nature (though l have such a gallows approach to this l actually look forward to eventually getting one!) but have just received a KEI one asking for a follow-up article in Medical Research Archives. I have never worked in the medical sector; my work is in fish parasites. But l have received countless emails from medical “journals” ranging from gynae to obstetrics to dental via radiology.

    The juxtaposition of such an apparently sincere-sounding email and a totally irrelevant title is simply hilarious, but is also disheartening because you’d think it would convince everyone as to the scam nature of such journals, only for one to see that there are still so many who inexplicably defend them. Unbelievably l still have arguments with the odd academic who say things like it’s capitalism run amok, all this does is give large publishers monopoly, that small journals/publishers can’t get a break, that we’re racist because it seems so many of these are conveniently East or South Asian publishers etc. l am grateful that you take the time to explain, not only the nature of the perpetrators behind these schemes by painstakingly tracing their addresses and contacts, but also the nature of their scams- the blank contents, the page charges etc. l treat you as the default resource for checking any journal title l don’t recognise and thank you for doing the work that you do. Keep it up.


    0 0

    This journal is now on my list <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" target="_blank">here</a>. I recommend against publishing in it and the other low-quality offerings from "IGM Publication."

    0 0

    HI everyone. Could you tell me, What do you thing about this journal: European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics ( EJPAM)….http://www.ejpam.com/index.php/ejpam/index


    0 0

    […] are now over one thousand predatory open-access publishers,” an increase of 232 over 2016, says Jeffrey […]


    0 0

    […] In tema: è uscita la Beall's List 2017. […]


    0 0

    […] Beall definisce l'editore un "predone di lusso", d'altronde per pubblicare quel falso sono stati pagati $2,830. Da […]


    0 0

    Thank you for posting this. The email was so personalized that I briefly considered replying.


older | 1 | .... | 533 | 534 | (Page 535) | 536 | 537 | .... | 541 | newer