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

Comment on Conference attendee to OMICS: I want out by Links 9/20/13 | Mike the Mad Biologist

0
0

[…] Resistance U.S. Science Laureate Bill Hits Roadblock (this is why we can’t have nice things) Conference attendee to OMICS: I want out Pig-manure fertilizer linked to human MRSA infections Evolution has a simple genetic […]


Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Scholarly Publishing News » Blog Archive » Dear Dr. Professor : on ‘predatory’ online journals

0
0

[…] 1)    Am I familiar with the journal? Do I know/recognize members of the editorial board? 2)    Are my colleagues or my Liaison Librarian familiar with the journal, or know/recognize members of the editorial board? 3)    Who publishes the journal? What does the journal’s home page look like? 4)    Who has published in the journal—are they known to you, or your colleagues, or your librarian? 5)    Is the journal indexed in Journal Citation Index? Is it indexed anywhere else? 6)    Does the journal appear on Beall’s List of Predatory Open Access Publishers and Journals? […]

Comment on Appeals by K. M. Golam Dastogeer

Comment on 2006 Article Plagiarized Three Times in Predatory Journals by Peter Matthews

0
0

This report is useful of course, but I would like to comment on the last piece of advice:

“submit your work to only the highest quality journals”

This should be an aspiration for all authors (and I am sure this is how the statement is intended). In reality, not all authors are producing work that can be accepted by the top 1% of journals, however journal quality is assessed (but see caveat below).

For most authors, it is enough to have work accepted by an established, reliable journal that is respected by readers and contributors alike, and that will let the work reach it’s intended audience.

Caveat…

Unfortunately, it’s beginning to look as if scam journals are now numerically dominant in the world, so that the new top 1% of journals might in fact be the old top 80% of journals (in the pre-Internet period, for example), so that we really do need to aim for the top 1%, or ‘highest quality journals’.

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Dear Dastogeer: Thank you very much for letting me know about this publisher. I have analyzed it and added it to my list. Please let me know if you find any others like it.
Sincerely,

Jeffrey Beall

Comment on Appeals by Slanina

0
0

Dear Dr. Beall,

i just wanted to draw your attention to a strange organization here in Slovakia.

http://the-science.com/about/

Thomson LTD organizes a bunch of virtual conferences in various fields -and mostly multidisciplinary ones- while also running journals with papers that are more often obscure than not (at least to me). Here are the journals in question:

http://www.sci-pub.com

Please could you investigate them and give me advice? A friend of mine submitted papers to their conferences, and now inviting me to do the same, claiming that they are legit and it it is easy to get accepted. However i doubt that it would serve me good to participate either in their conferences or to publish in their venues.

One last thing: Let’s suppose that i want to apply working overseas as a teacher (this crosses my mind often and already made some steps so it is not really a hypothetic situation). In general, could you tell me what is the standing of virtual conference papers as a publication in your country?

Thank you

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Conferences are a little out of my specialty. People are experimenting with online conferences. Personally, I think this is a good idea, and I hope their experiments are successful. I think people here in the U.S. are open-minded about online conferences. I personally am giving some webinars next month. Going to online conferences is probably better than doing nothing, and if you learn something new and make new contacts then it could be a valuable experience.

Regarding the-science.com, I looked at their website, and there is not much content. I did not see any journals, and there sere lots of errors on the page. Regarding http://www.sci-pub.com, this was on my list, but I removed it. It’s borderline, and I don’t like to include borderline publishers on the list. Hope this helps.

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I am going to need a couple weeks to finish analyzing these. Thank you.


Comment on OA Journal Pays Authors for Their Work — $2,500 by Muhammad Mohiuddin

0
0

I do not see either any problem with this practice rather it can attract good papers and there is no wrong with attracting good papers and if the author agrees to publish in this journal. There are sceptic for anything and everything and the critics of this practice can be included into the ALL TIME SCEPTICS group, take care

Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Sách: TÌm | Eaux

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

0
0

I think people here are arguing on the author fee, open access, big publishers bullying small ones and whatnot. The primary point is the criteria of rejecting, how would any scholar be sure that his/her work is being published alongside quality work from other authors and not second grade copied stuff. I see journals in India publishing articles left right and center, just to keep their profitability. If every thing written is published, what value remains of good research

Comment on Appeals by K. M. Golam Dastogeer

0
0

Dear Dr. Beall
Thanks for reply and adding this publisher in your list. However, I would be happy if you could analyse the journal ‘Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences’(http://www.pakjas.com.pk) and let me know your feedback. This journal boasts that it has an impact factor of 1.2.But, I am little bit doubtful as its articles are not of that quality.

Sincerely,
Dastogeer

Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by How to Read a Scientific Paper or Journal Article | Hack My Cancer

0
0

[…] are not familiar with the big-name journals.  But for starters, Scholarly Open Access maintains an excellent list of sketchy publishers (sadly, quite long) here – and also their criteria for inclusion.   These journals got bad […]

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Hi, Dastogeer:

I have analyzed the Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences before. It claim to have an impact factor of 1.240 is true. I realize its articles are not top tier, but I do not want to add it to my list at this time.

Thanks,

Jeffrey Beall

Comment on Another Fleet Startup: JSciMed Central by Bill

0
0

“designed for all the CS engineers and CS scientists that publishes novel papers”

I am trying to guess what their native language is.


Comment on Appeals by chikumamu

0
0

sir

what is your opinion on wedmed central and webmed central plus

Comment on LIST OF INDIVIDUAL JOURNALS by skepfile·be

0
0

[…] ^ Jump up to:a b Beall, Jeffrey. “Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals”. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved 2013-04-09. 3. ^ Jump up to:a b I. O’Neil (7 March […]

Comment on Two New Questionable Publishers: CDDK and American V-King by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I do not want to remove this publisher from my list. For one thing, their webpage states, “To protect the integrity of the process the names of the Editors are not listed. This also protects against the editors receiving an onerous amount of unsolicited mails.” By “editors,” they mean members of the editorial board. The fact that they refuse to list them actually harms the integrity of the publisher. My guess is that there is really no editorial board. The publisher also claims to be “a USA based Not-for-Profit organization,” but it offers no proof of either of these claims, and I think both are false. I recommend that scholars NOT submit papers to the Center for the Development and Dissemination of Knowledge (CDDK).

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

WebMed Central is borderline. It is not included on my list, despite the fact that they use a name that is similar to the much more legitimate PubMed Central.

They weren’t making enough profits on WebMed Central because authors are reluctant to use its open peer review system, so they started a traditional gold OA brand called WebMed Central Plus. This is new and I want to give it more time before I make any decision regarding whether to list it.

I personally would not submit to a publisher like this one.

Comment on Appeals by chikumamu

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images