Articles on this Page
- 01/12/17--13:50: _Comment on When “Sc...
- 01/13/17--03:24: _Comment on Mikhail ...
- 01/13/17--07:56: _Comment on Mikhail ...
- 01/14/17--00:03: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 01/14/17--06:58: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 01/14/17--07:00: _Comment on Proposed...
- 01/14/17--09:13: _Comment on When “Sc...
- 01/12/17--03:28: _Comment on Publishe...
- 01/12/17--12:29: _Comment on When “Sc...
- 01/12/17--13:45: _Comment on When “Sc...
- 01/12/17--13:50: Comment on When “Science and Education” Go Bad by tekija
- 01/14/17--00:03: Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2017 by Eyob
- 01/12/17--13:45: Comment on When “Science and Education” Go Bad by Herr Doktor Bimler
First thing to do, look if there EVER was such a conference truly organized in the past. Turns out there has been, with exhibitirs. E.g.
However this series sounds more like an commercial exhibition at its core.
Here is a different perspective. I understand from reading other blogs and from our experience in publishing a paper in Oncotarget that many authors have Indeed received regular peer review and recommendations for major revisions etc. from Oncotarget. My main point though, is that assuming the author of this blog has accurately reported his/her experience, the conclusion that “everyone but science” wins seems to be poorly thought through. Science always wins when new information is reported, regardless of any limitations of the research. Scientists who rely on any journal peer review to determine the veracity of research findings, rather than completely reading and assessing papers of interest to them, lack thoroughness and will undoubtedly be misled due to limitations of peer review in even ‘top’ journals. In fact science loses when a few gatekeepers of high impact journals impose their own bias on what reports are worthy of publication and force valuable information to be published in lower impact journals that many would wrongly assume to be of poor quality. Another truth is that all high impact journals, in a manner of speaking, game the system in different ways to protect their impact factor. This includes limiting publications to narrow fields in which there is a greater frequency of publications, publishing review articles etc.
of course this all dances around the impact factor as if it were truly useful. Colquhoun’s classic takedown seems even more relevant in the light of these shenanigans
Dear Dr. Bell,
Is Elsevier publisher predatory or not?
[…] Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2017 […]
[…] Proposed Criteria for Identifying Predatory Conferences […]
[…] When “Science and Education” Go Bad Jeffrey Beall […]
I’ve just received this email inviting me to become a editorial member because of my “expertise”. The problem is that I’m a mere PhD student.
Dear Dr. Jhonatan Christian Maraschin,
Wishes from EC Pharmacology and Toxicology!
I am here to represent EC Pharmacology and Toxicology (ECPT) journal that is serving as a publication platform for global researchers. The journal is having a team of eminent Editorial Panel members with expertise in various disciplines of Pharmacology and Toxicology. Please go through the below links.
Having seen your profile, I felt you are one of the most suitable personality with expertise in the desired field. So, I would be delighted to have you as an Editorial Panel member for EC Pharmacology and Toxicology.
Hope to have your precious collaboration!
With Kind Regards,
Ms. Rose Carolyn
EC Pharmacology and Toxicology
Contact: +44 20 3769 9658
And, of course, they are a spammer, listed by Scientific Spam DNSBL as such for soon two years
$ check sciepub.com
sciepub.com A 127.0.1.2 TXT “[SCIEPUB] SciEP Newsletter and Call for submissions, February 2015 Dr.Jhonas@sciencecfp.com 20150210″
The domain being one of those registered by “Steven Coughlins” a.k.a. “Giovanni Cascante” of Shenzhen, along with science-cfp.com, sciencecfp.org and umpteen dozen variations on the theme. Is this to evade spam filters?