Is it stand alone in your list for the next update?
Thanks ! I sent Tovar a link to this page.
I am very sorry — I don’t understand the question.
I mean when I check whether this journal “Oriental Journal of Chemistry” is in your list or not, I havent seen it in LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNAL. Could you analyse it?
I am exploring possible participation in an International Academic Forum conference called “ACE2016”. Website is http://iafor.org/conferences/ace2016/
Is this legit? Is this something I can trust with my research?
I would recommend, if possible, that you seek out and find a conference from a non-profit scholarly society in your field.
It’s not on my list at this time. On a personal level, I would recommend that chemists find a better journal for their work. As you indicate, this one has some serious problems.
Same experience here.
I agree that this is the main problem in OA; that it probably is easier publish pseudoscience in an author-pays business model.
Nevertheless, I recall many years ago arguing with some crank peddling his “scientific proof of god” nonsense. His paper was eventually published in some obscure subscription journal.
So, the thing is, you cannot stop crack pots and cranks from publishing things entirely, even if the world was subscription based. Peer review is very important. Most of all though, caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) is and always has been the name of the game.
Both of these these websites seem suspicious to me.
Neither is within the scope of my work. They both appear to be some sore of crude index.
The second one is probably not illegal, but it may be unethical.
I recommend you avoid these sites. Thank you.
I am a frequent reviewer for PLOS one and all of the manuscripts sent to me thus far have been specific to my research area. The manuscripts that I have reviewed were all scientifically rigorous and would have, in my opinion, been accepted in top tier content specific journals. I think that it is unfair to label PLOS One predatory based upon only a few examples. I must admit that the article link to the retracted paper about “The Creator” was a huge gaffe and I hope that PLOS One is taking more steps to improve its reputation.
Yes. You are welcome to use the data and information. Good luck with your presentation.
would you please check about this “http://www.praiseworthyprize.org/jsm/” Thank You
It used to be on my list. Then they switched their publishing model from OA to subscription, and I removed it from the list. I think very few if any libraries subscribe to their journals, so most stuff published there is not accessible to most.
Thank you Dr. Beall for the attention to and kind compliments about my article. The demarcation problem has been a topic of scientific philosophy since the ancient Greeks, and drawing clear lines between science and pseudoscience is difficult. Although the contrasted features I present arguably have practical value, philosophers of science may take issue with this simplistic depiction. That said, there are countless examples of pseudoscientific and unproven methods and strategies beings used in schools across the country. School administrators and teachers need tools to easily sort what works from the barrage of nonsense emanating from self-proclaimed education gurus who, despite the best of intentions, very often do not know what they are talking about (see, for example, the decades-long championing of facilitated communication by faculty at Syracuse University).
The exploitation of professional educators and schoolchildren is magnate for quacks and charlatans who rake in tens (of not hundreds) of millions of dollars every year. This matter is deserving of our full attention for moral, ethical, and scientific reasons. I look forward to any conversation on pseudoscience generally and/or its various manifestations in schools.
Dr. Beall, thank you for your work to maintain the integrity of science.
University of Kansas
[…] list of “potential, possible, or probable” predatory publishers. Appropriately, Beall recounts the story of her sting operation on his blog. Here’s how it all went […]
Thank you for highlighting this article. I assist with a graduate research class focusing on EPB (although in a different field) and this article is something we’ll incorporate into the class, as lots of students and professionals in the field seem to think that just because there’s been no research on something, it’s just as valid an intervention as something with lots of research supporting it.
Thanks, I had not seen this before. It’s a new medical publisher called Global Scientific Research Journals (GSR). I have analyzed it and added it to my list. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.