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

Comment on Predatory Publishing News by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Thank you very much for letting me know about this!


Comment on Predatory Publishing News by tekija

0
0

“Chemical Sciences Communications publishes research articles from all fields of Chemical Sciences. Chemical Sciences Communications is committed to publishing top-tier original research in all areas of Chemical Sciences and related fields through a fair and rigorous review process. It offers authors high visibility for their papers, access to a broad readership, high standards of copy editing and production, rapid publication and independence from academic societies and others with vested interests”

but there is no Editor, no Editorial Board and no published issues; in a e-mail as of today the journal is seeking both manuscripts and potential editors.

http://spcorpo.com/index.html

Comment on Open Access Bait and Switch by Paul Vaucher

0
0

I was solicited to write for a special issue in a new open source journal from the OMICS group called Journal of Forensic Research. Given there were no open-source journals in the field, I took the bait. The Editor was based in Michigan and I the editing manager was friendly enough to extend the deadline for me to get my paper ready for them.

I sent my first draft for review specifying I would have the English edited after I had brought corrections required by reviewers. My article was accepted without any condition (never got to read the reviewers return…) and I got an E-mail asking me to proof read the version that still needed editing. I corrected the entire paper late that night and sent back my request for corrections within 24h. Furthermore, the article contained many editing mistakes including wrong authorship, inconsistency between title and short title, etc. At the same time, to my surprise, I was billed $1800 for the editing job. The paper was published without my consent including most of the mistakes I had reported within 24h.

Regardless to the fact I had been stupid enough to pay a reduced invoice, it took me over 6 months and threats of legal actions to have them correct the paper. This was done without changing the DOI, adding any comments regarding the versions, or warning that a wrong version had been edited by mistake.

The special issue editor had had similar problems trying to contact the editing team. Even if the journal still cited him as the editor of the special issue, he had long quit his position. When speaking of OMICS he told me ” I have tremendous concerns about their practices”, and “my experience with the journal has been entirely unpleasant”.

Given that the journal’s official address is, I am willing to collaborate with anyone who wishes to initiate a collective legal action against OMICS in US. This is solely to defend open source. Herby, I attest I will donate any personnal financial compensation from this action to peerJ.

Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by The Natural Limits of Gold Open Access | The Scholarly Kitchen

0
0

[…] of traditional publishing make all the time, and it is not without merit. The flip side of the “predatory publishers” that Jeffrey Beall has brought to our attention could be said to be the […]

Comment on The Journal of Buffalo Science by Matt Hodgkinson

Comment on The Journal of Buffalo Science by Jeffrey Beall

Comment on New OA Publisher Launches with 99 Journals by Ripensamento – Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

0
0

[…] boom non si ferma.  Jeffrey Beall ha scoperto un editore che lancia 99 riviste già “indicizzate” anche se non hanno ancora […]

Comment on New OA Publisher Launches with 99 Journals by henry cornelius

0
0

dear Sir
please how does one start a genuine journal. Africans can’t pay 1000 us dollars as the european journals request so they go after asians . I am trying to start one


Comment on Icelandic Journal Latest Victim of Journal Hijacking by Ondrej

0
0

Hello, I contacted the publishing house. Penseejournal.com has nothing to do with the real La Pensée which is a journal issued in French only.

Comment on New OA Publisher Launches with 99 Journals by patsey

0
0

@ henry cornelius: why do you think you need to start a journal when there are loads of existing academic journals in every field housed by reputable publishers like Taylor and Francis, Elsevier, Sage, Palgrave Macmillan, etc, who would not charge you a penny to get your work publish after they’ve been thoroughly peer-reviewed. I would rather stick to these than submit valuable research findings to predatory journals set up simply to scam people.

Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by オープンアクセス(OA)での論文出版には、信頼できる投稿先をお選び下さい|おなじみのWileyジャーナルも選択肢になります |ワイリー・ヘルスサイエンスカフェ

0
0

[…] その一方で、近ごろ問題視されるようになっているのは、OA出版のための費用負担として著者から支払われる Article Publication Charge (= APC, 論文出版料金)を目当てに、適切な査読手続きを欠くなど質の低いOA誌を発行する出版社の増加です。悪質な出版社をまとめたブラックリストBeall’s Listが公開されているほか、最近では、Science誌のライターが、明らかな科学的誤りをわざと随所に入れたニセ論文をOA誌に投稿する「おとり実験」を行ったところ、投稿先の304誌のうち実に157誌からアクセプトされたという報告が大きな話題となりました。 […]

Comment on New OA Publisher Launches with 99 Journals by tekija

0
0

Most European journals publish free of charge. In my field, over 90 percent of them.

Comment on New OA Publisher Launches with 99 Journals by Nils

0
0

Dear Henry,
Most serious journals I know do not ask for any publication fee.

Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Altro viaggio dello yogurt « Oggi Scienza

0
0

[…] nel 2002 e dall’azienda nel 2008. La terza pubblicazione, comprata da un prestigioso predone dell’open access, dimostra l’effetto terapeutico del GcMaf su neuroni in vitro e quindi […]

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by meme

0
0

This journal is not covered in TR indexing products, nor does it have an IF. if it claims to have one it is false.


Comment on LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNALS by Proxies al conocimiento | Animal de Ruta

0
0

[…] Entonces, ¿Cómo tratar con una publicación que parece seria? En cuanto detectamos “ciencia basura” mas de una vez de la misma fuente, podemos empezar a descartar lo que venga de esa fuente. Lógicamente esto es un proxy y no un argumento válido porque constituye una falacia de autoridad descartar un argumento por solo “de donde viene”, pero en estos casos ahorra -muchísimo- tiempo. Por mi parte, descarto todo lo que venga del Journal of Cosmology con un rictus de desprecio que hace que Margaret Tatcher se vea como un gatito abrazable (así y todo, cadáver como es). Si no quieren tener que aprender por experiencia de dónde salen las publicaciones basura, Jeffrey Beal de  Scholarly Open Access se tomó el laburito de armar esta lista de revistas y publishers truchos o muy posiblemente truchos. […]

Comment on Two More Predatory Publishers by World Journal of English Language – treat with caution | TEFLtastic blog

0
0

[…] 200 US dollar fee. I next turned to Google to see whether anyone else shared my doubts, and indeed the only independent source on the first page of Google on the organisation Sciedu Press was one adding it to a list of questionable publishers. That also showed that the wording of the […]

Comment on Two More Predatory Publishers by alexcase

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by kardi

0
0

is recentscience.org real publisher or not? There are so many journals in this publisher but no sign-in info, no real address. The publisher also ask money from authors. They claim to have high impact factor but no well known editorial board.

Comment on Index Copernicus Has No Value by JATdS

0
0

I could consider this index to be useful, if the following were true: 1) can this company PROVE how it checks every single aspect on their long list of criteria? 2) Do they rely on the publisher to provide all the meta-data to establish the score, or do they conduct their own independent analysis? The page that in fact lists the metrics that are assessed to get an ICV are actually more about superficial issues related more to marketing and the visual and functional or technical perfection rather than to basic scientific principles. Thus, the following aspects are not taken into consideration, but shuld be: 1) is there fair peer review? 2) is there a single or double-blind peer review? 3) is there editorial bias? 4) does the company use spam e-mails to advertise the journal or to attract editors? 5) are there ethics, retraction and duplication policies? None of these basic scholarly aspects are factored into the ICV, so in that sense, I agree with the blog post that this is more of pseudo-metric that reflects a marketing value rather than an academic value. I have not analyzed the ICV value for any journals listed there, but indeed, it does seem strange that a 2012 value for Acta Myologica has increased 10-fold in just a few years. This suggests that the ICV is being gamed as equally as the impact factor is gamed. Some of the negative points also make no sense to me, for exmaple, what is “unethical advertising”? Some advertising such as Google ads or even adverts on the side-bars of Elsevier’s sciencedirect.com are not intrusive, can actually be useful to scientists, and even though a little irritating, are a valid revenue stream for publishers, especially those that use the green publishing model that does not charge authors to publish. So, I agree that alot is suspect, strange, or even incorrect about the metrics used to calculate the ICV. The ICV should be ignored as much as the IF.

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images