I have been getting e-mails from the following publisher, who I do not see on your list, but who I am worried is another predatory publisher: Horizon Research Publishing, USA (HRPUB). They charge for publication. http://www.hrpub.org/index.php
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Gemma
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Jeffrey Beall
Actually, that one is on my list. Please look here: http://wp.me/P280Ch-u
Thanks.
↧
Comment on Appeals by Alessia
Hello Mr Beall,
Is it possible for a journal to be fake but also indexed in international databases? For instance MCSER journals are on your list and I have checked them and they appear in DOAJ, Index Copernicus and EBSCO. I am really confused about this…
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
I don’t normally use the term “fake.” I generally say questionable or predatory. DOAJ does not sufficiently screen for quality, Index Copernicus accepts pretty much everything, and EBSCO wants to increase the number of journals it indexes in order to compete better with other A&I services.
↧
Comment on Appeals by Alessia
Many thanks for your reply. Well, in terms of scientific quality. they are totally fake in my opinion. Anyway, this journals seems very weird to me: http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/ Would you kindly check this out? it claims an ISI index but there is no such journal in Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE). In addition, the title seems really odd: European Journal of Science and Theology…Hmmm..a paradoxical association of terms.
↧
↧
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by 5 truths about publishing in Open Access which you should know before you start | Open Science
[…] journal, by checking opinions and reputation. As a first step, it is a good idea to look through the list of predatory OA publishers, which is compiled by Dr. Beall. Another good tip when choosing a journal may be to use the new […]
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
Actually, the impact factor information this journal provides on its webpage is correct. It has an impact factor of 0.389. I don’t find that this journal meets the criteria for being a predatory publisher at this time.
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Claudia Holland
My concern about Copernicus has to do with when an APC payment is due for one of their journals. The Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) journal requires payment of an APC for an author’s paper to be posted for discussion in NHESSD (from $15.75 to as much as $51.00/page). This payment is due upon acceptance of the article for posting in NHESSD.
Using the journal’s example (see http://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/submission/service_charges.html) a “typical” article would result in an APC of approximately $519.00. But this statement, “The discussion paper style leads to three times more pages than the classic manuscript style,” suggests the fee will be higher than that of a paper submitted for traditional peer review.
The tasks underwritten by the APC are clearly described on the journal’s website. Most of these tasks are not associated with publication of a peer-reviewed article; it is actually a fee charged for posting a working paper that may not be published in a formal publication.
Consequently, whether the Exec Editors intend this or not, the timing of payment intimates that Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) is a vanity publication because the fee is due BEFORE the paper is actually published. The “acceptance” letter an author receives is only for the initial vetting process by the editor and the availability of the paper for discussion.
I am not criticizing the review process for this journal, but I am highly skeptical of the reasons for charging the fee before a paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. As a manager of an open access publishing fund at my institution, I cannot currently recommend payment of this journal’s APC.
↧
Comment on OMICS Journal Publishes Pseudo-Science Vaccine Paper by Yurii
Actually the name of the authors is rather notorious in the field. At your leisure do read the following link and links therein. At some point the author of this paper sued a number of pharmaceutical and biotech companies (I think the idea was to do it in alphabetical order) for an alleged patent infringement in a classic case of “patent trolling”.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/glaxosmithkline-v-classen-immunotherapies-inc/
and here
The authors of the manuscript published a number of “studies” in so-called peer-reviewed journals on the subject, and, unfortunately these reports has been republished with no critical analysis in mainstream media, eg The Wall Street Journal.
The research activities of the authors were extensively discussed in
“Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All”
By Paul A. Offit, which I believe is available on googlebooks.
↧
↧
Comment on OMICS Journal Publishes Pseudo-Science Vaccine Paper by Gayle
On reading the article one can only say OMG, there is no science at all here correlating Diabetes 1 or 2 to autism, only loose data! Bizarre!
↧
Comment on A Publisher with no Website: Science and Engineering Publishing Company by Rao Shirvani
Dear Mr. Beall,
Can you check the quality of this journals..
Journal of Global Research in Computer Science (www.jgrcs.info), it has an .info domain, quite dubious…
I think it can be considered also as Predatory Journal
↧
Comment on A Publisher with no Website: Science and Engineering Publishing Company by Jeffrey Beall
I agree. I recently analyzed it and found it met the criteria but forgot to add it to my list, so I just now added it. Thanks for the reminder.
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by A Scientists
I think Ouadfeul and Morner are big personlaities and they don’t merit what you have written. You are very hard and I think that you have some problems with these big personalities. Do you call this passage a plagiarism !!!
I have read all the five papers of PRP and authors are big scientists ! and you ……….
↧
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Pattern Recognition
I have read carefully the paper, I think this not a plagiarism, this the geological setting of the area.
The refrence (Dejami, 2009)is cited in both papers
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Ahmed
this your opinion, you are not a god and a big scientists to juge journals and personalities. Please accept my apologies but………
Copernicus is a big publisher and work with big personalities
Open Access is a new publication procedure; please see
http://www.intechopen.com/about-open-access.html
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by A.Philip
Colleagues
It is not good from educated people to say harsh words about big scientists Like Morner and Ouadfeul
↧
Comment on Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” by Samir Hachani
I , Samir Hachani , sign with my real name. Mister ” scientist ” who are you ? wouldn’t you be either a person who’s acquainted with the “personnalities” or the personnalities themselves !!!!! I’m not trying to start a polemic but reacting to what Dr. Beall has noticed. If the “personnalities could prove they have been wronged , they can sue !!!! As far as I know, they are silent ” and ” silence implies consent “.Saha Ftourek “scientist “
↧
↧
Comment on Avestia Publishing: A New Bottom-Tier Publisher from Canada by grecia J
I do agree with you that, scholar communication works with honor system.But do not understand how can you judge a journal or publisher at the initial stage.
Every time i have seen you are blaming every publisher for their work at the initial stage.I think you do not have right to blame these publisher by adding there name in to your website is seem to be very useless.
As per my suggestion, instead of pointing finger to others, if you can do something for the scholarly community by opening few opening access journals it will be better.
Because pointing figures to others is very easy. But doing something is very difficult. I have seen there are few good publisher, you have spoke about those publisher. If a publisher is earning money, they also have investment for all these work.
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Rich Edwards (cabbagesofdoom)
I recently returned from speaking at an OMICS Group conference in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, I did not see this post before agreeing to speak at the conference – my wife emailed me the link whilst at the conference! – but fortunately I was not scammed of money. As such – the conference itself was shambolic in terms of the utter lack of organisation. As indicated, they had organised more than one conference in the same place at the same time – presumably to save their costs – and the whole thing felt rather sleazy. The large “organising committee” listed on the website were largely absent and/or not obviously organising anything. Similarly, the large and orderly conference room shown on the website turned out to be small and poorly laid out. (I think it had been divided in two and had an OMICS conference in each half!)
I am not sure whether they are fraudsters but either way I strongly advise boycotting OMICS Group activities on the basis that they are scientifically bankrupt beyond what the individual scientists bring to that activity. Despite the small size, lack of focus and crappy organisation, I did actually get some useful outcomes from the conference but these were despite the efforts of the organisers rather than because of them. Some of the science and individual presentations were of good quality but this was the worst scientific conference that I have attended by a long stretch – and I let them know as much in my feedback form! (Of course, visiting the website now shows a bunch of supportive quotes of praise. Either these individuals were at a different conference to me, have not experienced a good conference, or are *way* too polite.
Save your money and use it to go to a conference organised by scientists, for scientists, with science and not money/prestige/publicity as the motivator.
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by Jeffrey Beall
Thank you very much for this helpful response. I hope it will help others avoid attending OMICS’ shabby conferences.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
