Comment on Index Copernicus Has No Value by Alex SL

November 25, 2013, 9:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Combining Fake Journals with Fake Conferences: Global Business & International Management Conference by John Chuang

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

$

0

0

I think you misunderstand. I did not say that there should be no losers. More importantly, whether they should have losers is besides the point as it is a simple empirical observation that the Thompson Reuters IF goes up over the years.

No, not for all journals, and even for the successful ones not uniformly every year. But the decent mid to high level journals in my field all have higher IF now than five years ago, probably simply because people cite each other more often. (Plus perhaps a bit of gaming the system by authors and editors alike.)

---

Comment on Combining Fake Journals with Fake Conferences: Global Business & International Management Conference by John Chuang

November 26, 2013, 4:09 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Anne Nang'unda Kukali

≪ Previous: Comment on Index Copernicus Has No Value by Alex SL

$

0

0

I am a full time assistant professor and teach in the University for 15 years. I definitely sure this conference is real and their service is excellent. The presenter came from all the world though the size of conference is not very big. The conference people are all nice, no any discrimination, and picky.

Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Anne Nang'unda Kukali

November 26, 2013, 7:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Anne Nang'unda Kukali

≪ Previous: Comment on Combining Fake Journals with Fake Conferences: Global Business & International Management Conference by John Chuang

$

0

0

Thank you for your piece of advice. just replied to their email regarding their wish to publish my thesis into a book. now i know i wont send. so grateful

Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Anne Nang'unda Kukali

November 26, 2013, 7:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Geo Scholar

≪ Previous: Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Anne Nang'unda Kukali

$

0

0

Really sad, i almost fell in the trap today but something told me find out more about Lambert before you send in you thesis. at least i have survived. something should be done about them,

Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Geo Scholar

November 26, 2013, 8:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Jeffrey Beall

≪ Previous: Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Anne Nang'unda Kukali

$

0

0

Hi.

I would like to congratulate you for the wonderful work you are doing by guiding us in choosing what is right and what is not. I have a few queries, which I hope you will be kind enough to address.

When I looked at your criteria for categorizing journals as predatory (2nd edition), I found that there are two main points and some sub points. Division of your criteria as given on your website is like this:

Point 1
Point 2
Sub point 1
7 criteria
Sub point 2
5 criteria
Sub point 3
7 criteria
Sub point 4
6 criteria

My question is – how do you use these criteria for classifying journals as predatory? Do the journal have to meet all 25 criteria to be classified as predatory.
Is there a scoring system; for example, each criterion being given a score of one and all journals with scores falling below a certain fixed score, let’s say 10, being classified as predatory?
Is there some other type of scoring system with different weightage given to different criteria?
Can you post the scoring system here on your blog?
How do the criteria given in “practices considered to be reflective of poor journal standards” combine with above criteria?
Or is it that journals are classified as predatory based on your subjective and not objective assessment? If so, then why give the criteria?

I know these are lots of questions and I am imposing on your time, but if I want to follow your advice (which you do give at the end of every post) I would like to know how the conclusions were reached.

I hope you will oblige.

With regards.

Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Jeffrey Beall

November 26, 2013, 8:43 am

≫ Next: Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Samir Hachani

≪ Previous: Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Geo Scholar

$

0

0

There’s no scoring system. As you can see, the criteria are subjective. In most cases, the evaluation is very easy because the publishers engage in salient deception and lack of transparency. My intent is to only include the worst of the worst on the lists. I refrain from adding borderline publishers/journals to the lists.

Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Samir Hachani

November 26, 2013, 8:49 am

≫ Next: Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Head-spinning: Publisher to post dozens of notices of concern following investigations into editors in chief | Retraction Watch

≪ Previous: Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Jeffrey Beall

$

0

0

It is science with a string !!!!!

Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Head-spinning: Publisher to post dozens of notices of concern following investigations into editors in chief | Retraction Watch

November 26, 2013, 8:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by David Ryan

≪ Previous: Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Samir Hachani

$

0

0

[…] Meanwhile, the editors have republished the journal’s contents on another site, which is perfectly legal given the Creative Commons license that governs copyright — but probably also means there won’t be any expressions of concern on those versions. There is, however, at least one correction on that site, which is published by a company on Jeffrey Beall’s list of possible predatory publishers. […]

---

Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by David Ryan

November 26, 2013, 9:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Head-spinning: Publisher to post dozens of notices of concern following investigations into editors in chief – Nouvelles et satellite scientifique

≪ Previous: Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Head-spinning: Publisher to post dozens of notices of concern following investigations into editors in chief | Retraction Watch

$

0

0

This is just what you do, defending well-stablished journals… I guess they pay you well…

Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Head-spinning: Publisher to post dozens of notices of concern following investigations into editors in chief – Nouvelles et satellite scientifique

November 26, 2013, 9:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Jurnal yang Perlu Dipertimbangkan untuk Kenaikan Pangkat/Jabatan Dosen

≪ Previous: Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by David Ryan

$

0

0

[…] Meanwhile, the editors have republished the journal’s contents on another site, which is perfectly legal given the Creative Commons license that governs copyright — but probably also means there won’t be any expressions of concern on those versions. There is, however, at least one correction on that site, which is published by a company on Jeffrey Beall’s list of possible predatory publishers. […]

Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Jurnal yang Perlu Dipertimbangkan untuk Kenaikan Pangkat/Jabatan Dosen

November 29, 2013, 4:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers by Jurnal yang Perlu Dipertimbangkan untuk Kenaikan Pangkat/Jabatan Dosen

≪ Previous: Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Head-spinning: Publisher to post dozens of notices of concern following investigations into editors in chief – Nouvelles et satellite scientifique

$

0

0

[…] Bila karya ilmiah tidak ditemukan disalah satu laman tersebut maka akan di periksa di laman scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ dan scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals yang memberikan informasi tentang publisher dan […]

Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers by Jurnal yang Perlu Dipertimbangkan untuk Kenaikan Pangkat/Jabatan Dosen

November 29, 2013, 4:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNALS by Jurnal yang Perlu Dipertimbangkan untuk Kenaikan Pangkat/Jabatan Dosen

≪ Previous: Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Jurnal yang Perlu Dipertimbangkan untuk Kenaikan Pangkat/Jabatan Dosen

$

0

0

[…] Di dalam website tersebut juga terdapat artikel yang perlu kita cermati, berjudul Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. […]

Comment on LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNALS by Jurnal yang Perlu Dipertimbangkan untuk Kenaikan Pangkat/Jabatan Dosen

November 29, 2013, 4:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Ken Lanfear

≪ Previous: Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers by Jurnal yang Perlu Dipertimbangkan untuk Kenaikan Pangkat/Jabatan Dosen

$

0

0

[…] ditemukan disalah satu laman tersebut maka akan di periksa di laman scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ dan scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals yang memberikan informasi tentang publisher dan jurnal-jurnal meragukan (questionable journal). […]

Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Ken Lanfear

November 29, 2013, 7:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Hasseena

≪ Previous: Comment on LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNALS by Jurnal yang Perlu Dipertimbangkan untuk Kenaikan Pangkat/Jabatan Dosen

$

0

0

Is this true? ISSN has a checklist of qualifications, but do they actually verify the information provided? For example, would they Google selected names on the editorial board and contact them to verify their affiliation? That would be very important.
(I note this particular journal provided an “ISJN,” whatever that is.)

Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Hasseena

November 29, 2013, 11:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Anger in Albania by Nana Yaw

≪ Previous: Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Ken Lanfear

$

0

0

Yea, ISSN is a government entity and works on certain rules and regulation. They verify publisher and content specific information. According to Library of Congress ISSN can be verified by recalculating it and if the answer is the last digit of ISSN than its valid. For example XXXX-XXX5, apply formula, if the answer is 5 than its valid ISSN. If a journal has valid ISSN, it cannot be challenged by any law. ISSN entities also check the journal samples (online or printed), editorial boards and they never allow a free platform (like Google sites etc) to publish a journal. One think more, many people say that bad journals have no value….. But these are the opinions of novice people. If you ask it to a well knowledgeable practical scholar than he will say……A PUBLISHED CONTENT HAS A VALUE (whether journal is good or bad), THE CONTENT CANNOT BE CHALLENGED (but criticized only). Ok i will exemplify it. You can never find an article mentioning “previous literature shows that the research of ABC author is wrong” but you will find “previous research may have limitations which can be covered by future research”. Hope answer the questions.

---

Comment on Anger in Albania by Nana Yaw

November 29, 2013, 11:43 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals by Sukru Oter

≪ Previous: Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Hasseena

$

0

0

Though the reviewer/author is right in pointing out the self-plagiarism, the presentation is not entirely true. First, the 2011 paper was an empirical paper whiles the 2013 paper was a review paper. However, the first author was the same for both papers.

In respect of the complaints about the standard of English used, I believe the reviewer forgot that for most people outside the UK, USA, Australia, and New Zealand, English is a second language and that level of proficiency won’t be the same. To use language argument is to be engaged in what is already known among many scholars from developing nations as academic imperialism or social science imperialism, that everything must become like those in the West to be acceptable or worthwhile. This is important as globalization is nothing more than projecting one local culture to the world stage (Yankah, 2012). Openness to diversity is key here. Many academic and publishing traditions are evolving and will evolve to revolutionize the academe.

Besides, your efforts have produced effect to the extent that authors whose papers are accepted are asked to declare that their work does not constitute any form of plagiarism.

Comment on Appeals by Sukru Oter

November 29, 2013, 11:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Week 11: bona fides and mala fides in peer review | The Twelve Forties

≪ Previous: Comment on Anger in Albania by Nana Yaw

$

0

0

Dear Dr. Beall,
I am the editor of Oxidants and Antioxidants in Medical Science. We have communicated approx. 6 month ago but you did not removed our Journal from the list.
Yet, a total of 6 issues including 66 articles are already published. A new issue will be finalized within a few days. The e-mail addresses of the corresponding authors are to see on all papers. You can contact any of these authors and ask them for their experience with our Journal, the peer-review procedure, whether they had to pay for anything at any step, etc.
Of course, as being a relative new periodical, we have some difficulties, and sometimes some mistakes, made by our associate editors or even by myself, may happen. Most of us have many additional tasks including research, education and/or administrative missions at our university/academy.
There are so many really predatory journals in your list (and also a lot of which are not listed); I feel it is not fair to be listed together with them. I hope, this time you’ll handle with more common sense and remove OAMS from this list.
Regards

Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Week 11: bona fides and mala fides in peer review | The Twelve Forties

November 29, 2013, 12:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by tekija

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals by Sukru Oter

$

0

0

[…] included 122 journals listed at the time on Jeffery Beall’s list of predatory publishers (http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/). Beall’s list has been criticized in its own right (generally for being too inclusive); but […]

Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by tekija

November 29, 2013, 1:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

≪ Previous: Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Week 11: bona fides and mala fides in peer review | The Twelve Forties

$

0

0

http://researchcooperative.org/forum/topics/isjn-ii

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

November 29, 2013, 1:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Maureen O'Malley

≪ Previous: Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by tekija

$

0

0

I wrote you in April and explained the reasons for inclusion:

1. The editorial board doesn’t list affiliations, and it’s not very impressive.
2. Portions of the author instructions are lifted from Springer without attribution.
3. The journal states that the mean time to an accept/reject first decision is 14 days; this is confirmed by some acceptance statements: “Received February 29, 2012 Accepted April 13, 2012.”
4. GESDAV tries to position itself as a non-profit organization but is really for profit. Also, it’s unclear if the journal is even really an initiative of GESDAV; it may be an individual endeavor and the individual is just using the GESDAV affiliation to make the journal look more authentic.
5. The editor of this journal is also the editor in chief of the Journal of Experimental and Integrative Medicine, a journal which seems to have died, and which is also run by GESDAV.
6. The journal’s website doesn’t say anything about digital preservation, retraction policy, and the like.

7. There are numerous instances of borderline plagiarism, as if the authors are making sufficient thesaural substitutions just to keep the detection software happy.

I haven’t really seen any improvement in the journal, just the making of excuses.