Thanks very much for letting me know about this new publisher. I have analyzed it and added it to my list. Among others, one problem I saw is that they have accepted and published papers in one of their journals (at least) without any editorial board.
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Jeffrey Beall
↧
↧
Comment on “International Recognition Multidisciplinary Research Journals, Monthly Publish” by K Tada
I found a journal published by Springer “Electrical Engineering” has both GISI impact factor (3.7490) and SCR impact factor (0.303) in 2012. Another journal “Electrical Engineering in Japan” from Wiley has GISI (2.8921) and SCR (0.104) IFs.
The equation
(IF from SCR) ~ (IF from GISI) * alpha (alpha ranges 0.1-0.03)
seems to be useful.
↧
Comment on Appeals by GTBankplc
Dear Doc. I indeed appreciate your good work. Thank you very much. Dr. Obadara, O.
________________________________
↧
Comment on Hindawi’s Profit Margin is Higher than Elsevier’s by brembs
“Why aren’t all the anti-profit zealots complaining about Hindawi’s 52% profit margin?”
I am: “universal, unregulated Gold Open Access is one of the few situations I can imagine that would potentially be even worse than the status quo”
http://blogarchive.brembs.net/comment-n888.html
↧
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Batesian and aggressive mimicry in academic publishing: A proposal for escalation of the coevolutionary arms-race « Nothing in Biology Makes Sense!
[…] at the University of Colorado, Denver, the Open-Acces movement has inadvertently given rise to a legion of ‘predatory publishers’. The publishers offer (for a hefty fee) to publish research papers without the process of rigorous […]
↧
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Philip Odfer
Its not good bad from the publisher. But it is also a reality that first few issues of almost every publisher are not good. That’s why ISI, Scopus and PubMed always ignore 2 or 3 issues and index afterward issues, as initially, its difficult for publisher to shepherd good articles. I could not consider it a very bad thing its human.
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Samir Hachani
I think that Ouadfel is surfing on the Copernicus name .Copernicus is the Publisher of the highly respected Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) and Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (ACPD) on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. I do know something about the site I have done part of my thsesis on the open peer review Ulrich Poeschl has pionneered. Ouadfel you ain’t no Poeschl !!!!!( though I’m Algerian too but knowledge does not a accept this kind of shenanigans
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Andrea
What is interesting to me is why you do not include this one in your list. Have you made any changes in your policy? You used to be much harder on OA startups!
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Futures – Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it
[…] One more pattern of problems with that journal, Prof. Beall. […]
↧
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Genaro japos
Thank you dr beall for the pattern recognition writeup that tracked a plagiarized part of an earlier published manuscript. Your advocacy
Has helped the far reaches of the planet, such as the philippines in particular. We are enlisting the help of turnitin, ithenticate and grammarly for this purpose. We are moving towards academic integrity as a proactive means to combat plagiarism. We are mobilizing our members to get membership in the international center for academic integrity in clemson university. In the darkness, we are seeing more candles being lighted from the single candle you started.
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Climastrologia ciclistica – Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it
[…] One more pattern of problems with that journal, Prof. Beall. […]
↧
Comment on Avestia Publishing: A New Bottom-Tier Publisher from Canada by Tim
I’ve found your blog very helpful so far, in particular for confirming (or at least providing more evidence) that Science and Engineering Publishing Company are bogus. However the question has occurred to me: what would a *legitimate* new publisher (with one or more legitimate new journals) look like? With this Avestia bunch, it seems to me that much of the evidence you have so far collected could equally describe the struggles of a legitimate new publisher. (Whether the fields they cover are already adequately served by existing journals is a separate question. I certainly believe that it ought to be possible for a new publisher to start up in an existing field without automatic condemnation.) Are we perhaps being too hasty to classify new OA publishers as bogus based on equivocal evidence?
IOW: surely P(new OA publisher actually not bogus) > 0, and in such a case, what would we expect to observe?
↧
Comment on Avestia Publishing: A New Bottom-Tier Publisher from Canada by Jeffrey Beall
Here are some things that I would expect to see in a normal new scholarly publisher:
1. Subscription to a digital preservation service, such as Portico or LOCKSS.
2. Membership in a professional organization, such as OASPA.
3. Broad statements on policies such as retraction and authorship disputes.
4. More specific journal titles, not broad titles that are basically designed to accept almost everything in the field.
5. Reliance on personal networks other than spam to solicit articles
6. Be clearer and more transparent about the people behind the operation, who are they? Who owns it? What experience and credentials relating to scholarly publishing do they have? What is their business plan?
7. Some sort of innovation, new practice, or covering of a new niche, rather than just jumping on the bandwagon and publishing OA journals like all the others
↧
↧
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by beall’s list | chez kait
[…] Jeffrey Beall’s list of possibly predatory scholarly open-access publishers (as heard about on On the Media… again). Bookmarking it for myself, sharing. I suspect public admin/policy might be even more vulnerable than many fields for inadvertently mixing together reputable and, well, less-high-quality sources since we’re frequently pulling together information from multiple fields (some with less familiar publishing landscapes than others). […]
↧
Comment on Avestia Publishing: A New Bottom-Tier Publisher from Canada by Tim
Thanks, those criteria all look good to me. I’m circumspect regarding #7 as I feel that while restricting the number of broad-focus journals helps to prevent dilution of quality, it could equally be argued that it artificially restricts the volume of papers on a deserving topic, and also tends to suppress competition between journals. (This touches on difficult-to-answer questions like “How many journals for topic X/subtopic X.Y.Z *should* there be?”.)
I was not previously aware of OASPA, Portico or LOCKSS. With some quick searches I was able to verify that BMC and OUP were members of all 3 as expected, while PLOS was a member of OASPA and LOCKSS. Avestia was, as expected, not a member of any.
Could I suggest putting the information in your post in an article in its own right? I think many would find it interesting. Also I would certainly be interested in reading a longer article on the topic of how to tell which new publishers actually are (or might be) good, if you felt so inclined.
↧
Comment on Avestia Publishing: A New Bottom-Tier Publisher from Canada by Jeffrey Beall
Tim, a lot of these things are mentioned in my criteria here: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/
Thanks,
Jeffrey
↧
Comment on Avestia Publishing: A New Bottom-Tier Publisher from Canada by Tim
Thanks, bookmarked! (For the link to your “Criteria” page I mean — I can’t seem to reply to your second reply to me, so I’m replying here.)
↧
↧
Comment on Avestia Publishing: A New Bottom-Tier Publisher from Canada by Leopoldo Medina
You should be responsible and careful with your comments.
Sincerely
A Mexican citizen
↧
Comment on Another Fleet Startup: JSciMed Central by Brian Shewchuk
I received an email solicitation to be on the editorial board of “JSM Biochemistry & Molecular Biology” today. I knew it was a typical open access fake journal scam, but checked here to be sure. I’m at the point of getting several spam emails a week from fake open access journals. I think the science public seems to be pretty aware of these operations now, so hopefully this sort of thing will start to wane in the near future.
↧
Comment on Avestia Publishing: A New Bottom-Tier Publisher from Canada by Tim
With respect, I don’t understand the motivation for your comment. Do you think Who?’s comment implies something negative about Mexican publishers, or Mexicans in general?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
