Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Scholarly Open Access
Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on LIST OF INDIVIDUAL JOURNALS by Ricerca motorizzata « Oggi Scienza

0
0

[…] PARCO DELLE BUFALE – La OMICS/Scholar Central di Hyderhabad è nella Beall’s list degli editori “predoni”. Il suo direttore, Srinubabu Gedela, se ne lamenta su Nature, […]


Comment on All About Scigmoid Publications by Thomas E.

0
0

Jeffrey, I think you could be hasty sometimes to making inclusions in your list. I advise that you contact potential candidates of your list with query for clarity on aspects of their operations that may be questionable with regards to your proposed standard.

Comment on Appeals by Umesh

0
0

Sir, may i know why you include International journal of computer application (IJCA) journal……www.ijcaonline.org/‎

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Do OA journals need Editors? | Open Science

0
0

[…] the quality of the journal and the editors’ work can be questioned. Just look at the list of predatory journals created by Beall or a case where an OA journal was willing to charge a fee for a false article, one that the […]

Comment on All About Scigmoid Publications by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Well, they sent me an email that was signed by a false name (Gena Marie). That indicated to me that they are dishonest and not afraid to use deception in their professional operations. There are additional reasons I added them as well, and I stand by the decision. If you want to submit your work to them, go ahead.

Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Ninth Level Ireland » Blog Archive » Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea

0
0

[…] “Many are excited about innovative measures that purport to quantify scholarly impact at a more granular level. Called article-level metrics or ALMs, these measures depart from time-honored computations of scholarly influence such as the journal impact factor …” (more) […]

Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by mac

0
0

Jeffrey, while I usually enjoy your posts here, I must disagree with at least one key item in this one. I don’t know if you’re unfamiliar with the Impact Factor’s ins and outs, or if you’re choosing to ignore them, but the biggest reason that these new metrics are being developed is because the IF is (and has proven to be) manipulated by respected journals for decades. The algorithm is not hard to manipulate, and journals have done it over and over again; often even after being called out for having done it.

The other big problem with the IF is that it is always at least a year behind. In today’s data-currency culture, a metric that’s a year old is largely irrelevant.

I’m not saying that the newer metrics are good. I’m just saying that, despite too many academic Deans using IF as a measure of publishing success and tenure allotment, the IF is not in any way a gold standard metric.

Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Jurgen Ziesmann

0
0

You write: “these measures depart from time-honored computations of scholarly influence such as the journal impact factor”. Of course they do … any new measure must by definition depart from the old ones and as they are new they cannot be time-honored. And time-honored certainly does not mean “best possible ever” – Journal Impact Factors are also nothing else than a means to generate business and cannot be trusted. In fact I am quite doubtful that the journal impact factor tells anything about the quality of a single published article … I can take two my own articles as perfect example … both of them published in the same journal about a year apart … one cited by now nearly one hundred times, one exactly one time … but both with the same journal impact factor. Obviously one had impact and the other one not.

Yes, the field of publishing has become messy. Yes, it is much more difficult to evaluate the quality of any given article. But change from the slow, outdated, and extremely overpriced system of journal publications exactly the same way as 70 years ago (just also online), a system that robs the authors for their copyright and of any profit generated from their work while overcharging the readers and limiting access to publicly funded research results – is absolutely overdue.

Personally I think a way of publishing scientific research with non anonymous post-publication review – a way that generates a true dialogue of the authors with the questions readers have about the published research – should be very possible to achieve. It would free from the limitations of the peer review – where some anonymous reviewers clearly abuse their power and anonymity to block publication of research that goes against their pet hypotheses and theories. Open access, open discussion, no hiding behind anonymity … sounds very attractive to me.


Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Genaro japos

0
0

Article influence is better measured by looking at actual citation counts per article which google scholar readily provides. Then, we click links to find who are citing the article. Then we check the h index of the authors citing the articles. From these, we would know that a good article is one that is cited by the experts of the field often with h index of 10 or higher.Open access journals enjoy very high page views and downloads but translate to very low citation counts. Researchers know better, open access journals have low credibility. They would rather use their university library subscription to proquest, thomson, wilson web, among others.

Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Ron Davis

0
0

Dear Beall, congratulations!
You are doing a fantastic job as to castigate the things is a very good and easy job. I would like to point out, that rather saying don’t do this, you should offer a solution to this so-called crisis, as i don’t believe any crisis in publication industry. This is the era of internet, people are educated and civil, they know who is right and who is wrong. If a rational author publish in a under grade journal, he would never publish again in that, off course. As far as Thomson Reuters is considered, i believe that market monopoly pushes economy into hell. So, Scopus, google metrics etc are doing good towards the development. One thing more, have you ever criticized the Thomson Reuters Money Gambling portfolio known as Reuters. You should direct your attention toward better ideas to bless the nation.

Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Unfortunately, it has been proven that citation counts in Google can be gamed pretty easily.

Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by Serwaa Opoku

0
0

Please provide a list of the genuine ones. That will also be helpful.

Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Genaro japos

0
0

Thank you for the info that citation counts can be gamed easily. I did not kow this and please share your sources on this. The good side of google is you can click to trace who cites the article and you gain access to the articles that cited the paper.A reader finds if the the article is cited by grey literature or by credible sources. Traceability is an important component of metrics. However, the scientific literacy of researchers needs to be upgraded since many still do not even know google scholar and other online sources, and journal and article metrics. Basically, in developing countries, the print source is still popular and unpublished theses and dissertations. Most journals are still in print format.

Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Jeffrey Beall

Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I never said it was a crisis, so please don’t put words in my mouth. Also, is your name really Ron Davis? How does someone with such a name write in such unidiomatic English?


Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea | Nader Ale Ebrahim

0
0

[…] See on scholarlyoa.com […]

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by subhojit banerjee

0
0

Thanks for the list……. i hope this list is made available to all selction/promotion committes who judge scholar contribution by numbers rather than quality !!!

Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Mob

0
0

Dear Jeffrey Beall

I have read your recent posting against OA publishers and would like to
express my personal opinions on your so called predatory fighting blog

1. You seem to plan to kill all OA publishers on infancy stage. Many motivated people may wish to start a good quality OA publishing firm but may have no good experience. You plan to prevent all these people having any progress.

2. Your most arguments are premature, just because an OA publisher publishes one or two plagiarized papers does not mean the publisher must be blacklisted. You just need to provide awareness and inform publishers on your website that scientific community does not like it and ask them to be more careful in future. Many OA publishers try to use free materials such as gmail to reduce their expenses, their website may have some broken links, they may not be familiar with more professional stuff
like having metadata for each article to promote their job, properly.
These issues do not mean they are unqualified to run a publishing firm.

3. I personally receive invitation from ELSEVIER to publish new
paper on their recently started journals and it does not mean ELSEVIER is
spamming me, but if a new OA invites me to submit my paper, I must
consider it predatory publisher, why?

4. There are many OA journals published by ELSEVIER, which are low quality, “Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences” is just an example of it. Why don’t you ever criticize journals which are published by big publishers? Do you have any financial relationship with them?

5. I wonder who pays your legal affairs, they must be rich enough to feed you well, Honestly, my gut feeling is telling me that you are hired by some people just to kill the entire OA publishers.

Finally, only time will tell us more about the nature of your job, many
OA publishers in your list will do well in my opinion and you will be
blamed by many for having many bias judgement. Be brave and provide response instead of just removing the entire message. Provide evidence that shows you are not hired by some people whose benefit has been jeopardized by emerge of OA publishers. I admit that some of OA publishers are criminals but your list contains many OA publishers who wish to build good quality work.

Comment on The Suspicious Case of Science Record Journals by Aminuddin

0
0

is there any progress in the assessment on the above-mentioned academic publisher Mr. Beall?

Comment on Article-Level Metrics: An Ill-Conceived and Meretricious Idea by Ron Davis

0
0

Ahh. Am i here to use idioms? Off course NO. Most of the people just come here to enjoy your handmade crafts. Ask to people that what your blog portray? It clearly reflects that one publisher is doing this other is doing that, and all are doing nothing but just making market fool, and the only publisher doing good at the surface of planet is Mr.Blogger. You just need to learn the publication ethics, never do a personal attack to your viewers. After all your viewers made your blog worthy. I really feel your non-human attitude.

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images