sir, please have a look at
1) Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences http://jchps.com/
2) National Journal for Basic Medical Science http://njbms.com/
Comment on Appeals by chikumamu
↧
↧
Comment on A Magical Combination: Easy Acceptance and an Authentic Impact Factor by Barbaros Akkurt
Hello, it is sad that some Turkish people succumb to the lure of easy publication, which is very popular in academic community in order to increase the number of publications, submit a scientific activity report, and become promoted in the ranks of academy. Thanks for this post – I have mentioned it in my Facebook wall. Good work, thank you!
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by Bob O'H
Sorry to add another publisher to your workload, but have you looked at Pinnacle Journal Publication, http://pjpub.org/? It looks new (ISSN only applied for), doesn’t seem to have any editorial boards etc.
It also seems to be sending out the most pathetic journal spam yet.
↧
Comment on Beware of Spam Email With Offers to Promote Your Research by Ana Rodriguez
I just got an invitation from Research Media. I’m a scientist based in the US. They asked me for 2250 British pounds! (=$3700). They sound very professional and their website also looks good. Thanks for posting this discussion here. They claim that 30,000 individuals and institutions receive their publication, but I don’t think there is a way to know if this is true. It is a good thing and their work looks nicely presented in the end, but is it worth the money? I don’t think so. It also seems like they are increasing their rates rapidly, based on previous posts.
↧
Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Katrin
I got two e-mails from the German branch asking to publish my Master thesis. They somehow found out my current work email, which is written in my online CV. Yet they did not find out that I’m female (which should be obvious from the photo in my CV) and andressed me as “Mr”. That should make clear that they have text-mining algorithms and don’t actually do any manual research on the people they approach. What I don’t get is how they found out the exact title of my Master thesis because I don’t mention it anywhere online. In any case, they and all of their branches should be avoided.
↧
↧
Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) by Jeffrey Beall
Thank you for letting me know about this publisher; I have analyzed it and added it to my list.
↧
Comment on Appeals by Arne Henningsen
Dear Jeffrey Beall
Thank you very much for creating and frequently updating your list. In February 2010 and July 2013, I reviewed papers for the “Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics” (JDAE) and the “Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences,” respectively. Both of the papers had many serious flaws, particularly in the methodology and the interpretation of the results, and the authors derived incorrect conclusions. In my referee reports, I clearly highlighted these flaws and suggested to reject the papers but I just found out that both of the papers were published without any (relevant) changes! Hence, I wasn’t surprised to find the publishers “Academic Journals” and “Greener Journals” on your list. Today, I was asked to review a paper for the “International Journal of Agricultural Subsidy and Rural Economics” (published by “International Scholars Journals”). A quick look at your list prevented me from wasting time on a review that would have been disregarded anyway. Thanks a lot!
Kind regards,
Arne Henningsen
↧
Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall
Thank you!
↧
Comment on Look out for Bogus Impact Factor Companies by bhushanpharmacology
I am also agree with you
↧
↧
Comment on WSEAS and NAUN: Two Publishers (and Conference Organizers) to Avoid by Rens W. van der Heijden
Deadline extensions are the norm for conferences. I haven't heard of a single conference that didn't have extensions, even extremely high profile conferences like <a href="http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP-Index.html" rel="nofollow">IEEE S&P</a> have it (see e.g. <a href="http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2013/index.html" rel="nofollow">this year's</a>).
↧
Comment on A Magical Combination: Easy Acceptance and an Authentic Impact Factor by Jake Bundy
OK – I’ve done it, just out of interest – you could have done it too!
For papers published in 2010-2011 (i.e. years counting to most recent IF), there are over 850 citations. 11% are journal self-citations, but there are 340 different citing journals in total. To my eye, the journals look like normal enough journals (but I’m guessing, as it’s not my field). There is also a reasonable proportion of citations from more general (i.e. non-veterinary) and perfectly well-respected scientific journals that I recognize, including the odd citation from highly selective journals such as PLOS Genetics.
↧
Comment on OMICS Goes from “Predatory Publishing” to “Predatory Meetings” by UW
One word: Spam filters. Google’s spam filters show no mercy to any OMICs missive.
Recently sent an invite to present at a Metabolomics conference in March at the San Antonio Airport Hilton. Funny thing is, I am going to San Antonio next week for the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. I find it worrying that found that out.
↧
Comment on A Magical Combination: Easy Acceptance and an Authentic Impact Factor by tekija
To answer your question, this journal is reported to have had 602, 610 and 583 papers during the latest recorded years, a bit more than what you estimated. Almost all of them are original papers (130 journals. Those between 20 and 10 cites include many Elsevier and one Wiley journal.
I do not see anything suspicious in the list. This journal is now in volume 12, one volume per year, confirmed by the citation data at TR, so it is not an upstart with falsified volumes. It is also a print with additional online, alledgedly financed at least in part by subscription fees. Do we know this is not true? Do we know hether they perhaps sell advertisements to the print issues, etc?
Reading the contents of the 6 issues in the current year volume (oddly not close to 24) at least 98% fit well with the title. Thus, the journal seems adequately edited to me and the EB, although large by western standards, seems to do its job. The only odd ones out were 3 papers on human subjects that would be better placed in a medical journal – but admittedly we also belong to the animal kingdom. I did not find the pun in this blog post on the paper on concrete properties appropriate. After all, the paper discusses concrete use in agricultural buildings, so I would for my part consider it bona fide for this journal scope. Overall, to select that particular one and display it in the light of nbeing off topic in this post was unfair, in my opinion.
Also, I do not find the number of papers published per year any reliable criterion on journal quality. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Take one example from a field more close to me, is it also too easy to publish in Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science? After all, they print – on-line only – far more papers in their 12 annual issues than this Pakistani journal does in its 24 – e.g. a grand total of 1002 last year. Yet this is a high tier journal with an IF of 3.441. To make that claim, one would also need to know what is the percentage rejected, which was not mentioned in this blog post.
This may well be a lower tier journal, as indicated by its low IF, but by and large, it does not appear obviously predatory to me one any account – whatever may apply to Medwell in broad terms as a publisher.
↧
↧
Comment on A Magical Combination: Easy Acceptance and an Authentic Impact Factor by Dana Roth
Yes, simply omissions when information is in the original article. Note that WoS does not add this info for conference papers, editorial material, letters, etc.
↧
Comment on WSEAS and NAUN: Two Publishers (and Conference Organizers) to Avoid by bencomp
I count seven different conferences in your list – assuming that two conferences with the exact same name are the same conference, even if they’re organised (jointly?) by WSEAS and NAUN.
It would be interesting to hear about previous conferences and how the “scientific sponsors” are involved. Kingston University London doesn’t list either conference they are said to be ‘scientifically sponsoring’: http://www.kingston.ac.uk/aboutkingstonuniversity/events/all-events/lectures/
I took the liberty of asking via Twitter: https://twitter.com/bencomp/status/408700666052218881
↧
Comment on WSEAS and NAUN: Two Publishers (and Conference Organizers) to Avoid by Jeffrey Beall
Oops, it looks like I didn’t dedup the conferences. Thanks for your follow-up investigative work.
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Researcher
Please notify me why IJMER (International Journal of Modern Engineering Research) is categorized as individual (predator). I have already published with them. The aim of a paper is to be published and they did so. What is wrong then. They have an ISSN number and published an Impact Factor. Please, why not to trust this journal.
↧
↧
Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by Jeffrey Beall
This journal is on my list because it’s deceptive. It claims to have an impact factor, but it really does not. Also, having an ISSN is not a measure of quality, and the journal hides its location. I believe this is a very low quality journal. I strongly recommend against submitting papers to it.
↧
Comment on Lambert Academic Publishing: A Must to Avoid by Phoenix Amgelfire
Signed electronically or?
↧
Comment on LIST OF PUBLISHERS by Jurnal yang Diragukan Dikti (?) « www.abdul-hamid.com
[…] 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 […]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
