Comments for Scholarly Open Access

The monopoly of JCR list will soon be over once Google Scholar offers customize citation report, which is updated very quickly. People may choose to watch citation report for a journal’s articles based on JCR list. In other words, Google may wish to give us an option to see how many times a particular journal’s papers are cited by other journals listed on JCR list. This will be a revolution on impact factor and many young OA publishers could benefit of it. In such a case, any one could easily verify the quality of a new journal and there is no need to wait for few years until the journal is listed on JCR. The other advantage is that it could challenge JCR list since there may be some new journals that would perform better than traditional JCR names.
Mob

I would like to whether chemical science transactions is a genuine OA journal or falls under other catogory?

I think that the main problem with ICV is that it is a purely subjective value, while IF is objective BUT the sample size on which the calculation is applied is too small. In addition, ICV claims to be an indicator of journal quality while IF stands pretty much for “citedness”. They are not comparable.

But couldn’t such an indicator be easily gamed, e.g., by citation cartels?

Please review this network of journals http://www.gtia.co.in. Congrats on your great works.

Dear Beall you may think i reject most of your judgments as bogus or premature. But today i am with you because i hate plagiarism and academic piracy. I don’t have words to describe these pirates. I hate them……….

Completed. This publisher is the Global Technocrats & Intellectual’s [sic] Association. I have added them to my list.

I had three times experiences on Plagiarism, as well. My PhD. work has been first plagiarized when I went to AAPS for the poster presentation. Second and third plagiarism came from my dissertation. All of them presented have been presented in “Science Direct”. One of them has been executed.

[…] Colorado librarian has compiled a blacklist of suspicious journal publishers, self-titled ‘Beall’s List’. This growing list currently exposes over 400 dubious Open Access publishers with poor ethical, […]

[…] If the publisher isn’t on the list, check out Beall’s Criteria for Determining Predatory Open Access Publishers and do some investigating […]

It is rather ironic that the caption of the journal says _YOUR_ research – _YOUR_ rights. At the most fundamental level, Omics really does have an obligation to address matters of plagiarism and piracy.

[…] open access publishers (as distinct from legitimate open access publishers like Plos). In a new post, he discusses the rise of a similar phenomenon: the gaming of article-level metrics, including by […]

Can you explain what you mean by “executed”? Thank you.

When it is very clear that new publishers use deceit to lure scholars into submitting papers, then you are correct, I want to warn researchers about the corrupt publishers, and I will be resolute in my listing and warnings. There is no place for corrupt publishers in scholarly communication. New publishers must also be completely ethical and transparent.

Look at the email address of this guy Raj… That sure signals he is a serious academic… ;)

Dear Dr. Beall,
Is IGI Global a reliable publisher? http://www.igi-global.com/about/

It’s not an open-access publisher. I generally limit my analyses to OA publishers. Having said that, though, this publisher has lots of journals in my field, but I have never submitted any work to them nor do I plan to.

I have read this part and found that there is no plagiarism in it. The authors have changed some parts in the text so it it’s not “verbatim” like what you say. On the other hand you stated that the authors referred to other sources; so maybe the authors read this part in another article or conference paper and maybe they did not read the mentioned article above. One last thing, Ashdin sold this journal now, so you really need to remove this article now, if you really seek the truth.

Mohamed: this article has been edited some weeks after the SOA post reporting plagiarism. The metadata for the current pdf file deposited on the Ashdin page indicate “File created 02/03/2013″, while that article was published in… April 2011.

[…] Beall has written a pretty negative blog post about altmetrics – it’s worth checking out if you’d like to balance out some of the more pro-altmetrics articles we’d normally […]

Latest Images