I wouldn’t say this is a ‘subjective’ classification. I think you mean these are qualitative categories to which journals are matched on the basis of available evidence. Too many matches and the journal gets a ‘predatory’ classification. Because anyone in the community can use these qualitative categories for evaluation purposes, they can’t be ‘subjective’ in the sense of only one person being able to justify the ranking. I have read many evaluations, seen how many of the journals fall into various of these categories, and agree wholeheartedly with the classification. Using ‘subjective’ makes it seem like mere impressionistic opinion, which the classification system is not. And in case anyone worries about not enough evidence being used, the appeal process can provide more/different evidence, and the classification potentially adjusted.
Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Maureen O'Malley
↧
↧
Comment on New Open-Access Publisher: Stringer Open by Jeffrey Beall
Thank you!
↧
Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Debora Weber-Wulff
The picture in the background of the page is from a now-defunct page coffee42.posterous.com, the Internet Archives have a name for the person with that blog, but it looks more like Photon “borrowed” the picture.
ISSN numbers are issued, but offer no guarantees that there is a serious operation behind the publication. The same thing is true for ISBNs – you can purchase one for your book for as little as $50 as a self-publisher.
@Hasseena, of course the content can be challenged. It can have been plagiarized, or the data faked, and the publication must be withdrawn. Check out Retraction Watch to see far too many papers that need to be withdrawn.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by jorgej
I was looking for it, but can not find it on your list of questionable organizations. Can you point me to that entry ?
Thanks!
↧
Comment on Research by Wkai Spooler
Hi Jeffrey Beall,
you are conducting a very useful service for scientific world.
But there are a lot of criticism about you rather than your web page. You should consider to request help from a non-profit organization in order to maintain your list without any suspicion.
Otherwise you can not stop the people, that think you are a gunman of BMJ or another publisher which earn millions from open access publishing.
Also please give us some opportunity in order to help you (new websites, email groups etc).
thank you for this good job.
↧
↧
Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Hasseena
You are absolutely right, but i wrote in the context if an original content is published in a bad journal. ISSN does not guaranty other than first issue of a journal. They usually check first issue and other contents to assign an ISSN. I believe the ultimate thing is the quality of publication. So journals should publish high quality stuff sincerely. Not only journals, every scholarly business like education, scholarly events org etc should apply some form of statistical control mechanisms to ensure the best quality for scholars.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Jeffrey Beall
↧
Comment on All about the International Scholarly Research Network by paul
Hello,
A very informative post -thank you! ISRN Neuroscience invited me to join their wide editorial board and I did that partially because I wanted to see as an “insider” how the process works for this group of journals that is somewhere in the gray zone when it comes to reputation. Here are pros and cons that I have noticed (and I have reviewed 4 times for them): Cons: the editor in chief is not a reputable person (what we are used to publishing in e.g. Elsevier journals) and I am not sure whether this person has a real capacity to make final decisions in controversial cases. Pros and cons in one :): in one case when a manuscript was iffy (in which an editor in chief would normally make a call without sending it to referees) they asked me to read the paper paying attention to a questionable set of data to assess whether I had any reservations. Once I described the design was flawed, they provided their own similar pre-assessment and rejected the paper right away. It means that someone actually pre-screens those papers, but having a real editor in chief would make their life easier. Pro: 2 out of 4 manuscripts that myself and the second referee deemed as inadequate were rejected flat out. The decent papers were published after significant revisions.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by jorgej
Thanks!
↧
↧
Comment on Research by Ahmad
Hi Jeff,
Can you comment about European Scientific Journal? If only one criteria is applied, then, as far as the “scope” test is concerned, I think this Journal may find a place in your list. What do you say about it? Thanks any way for your effort to keep things pure. Best regards. Ahmad
↧
Comment on Index Copernicus Has No Value by Shalini Mehta
But what about their practice of asking publishers to BUY their lCV logo for showing off on their website? I think they should look for other alternative source of revenue.
↧
Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by tafandrew
is LAMBERT ACADEMY PUBLISHING Genuine?Pls reply
↧
Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Jeffrey Beall
Please see <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/05/lambert-academic-publishing-a-must-to-avoid/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
↧
↧
Comment on Shedding Some Light on the Photon Foundation by Guido B
@tekija: thanks for the link! The comment by Mehrab D shows that they asked for $200 after a paper was submitted (it’s not clear whether the paper was already accepted).
↧
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Fremtidens forskningsbibliotek | BIB bloggen
[…] EU gjør programmet Horizon 2020 OA obligatorisk Predatory publishers – publiserer alt. Jf Bealls liste. Open data, dekkes av egen cc lisens […]
↧
Comment on A Magical Combination: Easy Acceptance and an Authentic Impact Factor by Dorey, Gerald
Jeffrey – this is deeply weird given how fussy Thomson-Reuters normally is. Plus if you look at the citations it has a very low rate of self-citations, which I would usually would think was very healthy. It is not clearly open access – the journals all ask for both an assignment and for an exclusive licence, confusing the two, but neither of which is very OA! And it has paid subscriptions as well: perhaps they are making money at both ends. But to be honest, their web site is pretty good.
Odd, odd, odd
Gerald Dorey
Routledge – Taylor & Francis
Associate Editorial Director: Social Science Journals & Digital Resources
Regional Publisher – South Asia: Science, Social Science and Humanities
UK office: 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, OX14 4RN, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7017 7902
Web: http://www.tandfonline.com
e-mail: gerald.dorey@tandf.co.uk
Indian office: 912 Tolstoy House, 15-17 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110 001, India
Tel: +91 (0)11 4315 5178
Web: http://www.tandfonline.com
e-mail: gerald.dorey@tandf.co.uk
[Description: http://tandf.tandf.co.uk/journals/Banners/starbanner.gif%5D
Taylor & Francis is a trading name of Informa UK Limited, registered in England under no. 1072954
↧
Comment on A Magical Combination: Easy Acceptance and an Authentic Impact Factor by Jeffrey Beall
Thanks, Gerald — this is a helpful analysis.
↧
↧
Comment on A Magical Combination: Easy Acceptance and an Authentic Impact Factor by Dana Roth
Thanks … I passed this along to my ‘friends’ at TR … we regularly communicate regarding errors in WoS records … formerly author name misspellings but now more often omission of funding information.
↧
Comment on A Magical Combination: Easy Acceptance and an Authentic Impact Factor by Hasseena
The journal is in your list since 2010, but it very very popular on internet having fantastic Alexa rank. Wow……. I was shocked to see the that journal has basket full of paper submissions. This journal is really an Icon and inspiring that it can do well for scholars.
↧
Comment on A Magical Combination: Easy Acceptance and an Authentic Impact Factor by Shirley Ainsworth
Do you mean omission of funding information from WoS records when the information is included in the original articles, or something else? As in not declaring conflicts of interest?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
