Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Scholarly Open Access
Browsing All 10802 Browse Latest View Live
Mark channel Not-Safe-For-Work? cancel confirm NSFW Votes: (0 votes)
Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel.
0

Comment on Appeals by Origany

0
0

Is it stand alone in your list for the next update?

Comment on About Those Manipulative Spam Emails from Internal Medicine Review by Woodrow C. Monte

0
0

Thanks ! I sent Tovar a link to this page.

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I am very sorry — I don’t understand the question.

Comment on Appeals by Origany

0
0

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?

Comment on Another Predatory Conference Organizer from Asia: Academic Fora by Celia Balbin

0
0

Hello SIr!
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?
Thank you!

Comment on Another Predatory Conference Organizer from Asia: Academic Fora by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I would recommend, if possible, that you seek out and find a conference from a non-profit scholarly society in your field.

Comment on Appeals by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

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.

Comment on Ongoing Questions about PLOS ONE’s Peer Review by Harry Hab

0
0

Same experience here.

Comment on Article on Fallacious and Pseudoscientific Thought Worth a Read by wkdawson

0
0

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.

Comment on Misleading Metrics by Yury I. Philippov, MD

Comment on Article on Fallacious and Pseudoscientific Thought Worth a Read by Jaro Franta

0
0

Apparently in some places avoiding pseudoscientific practices is far less important than just plain “dissent”.
Some of this even got out on Wikipedia….

Comment on Misleading Metrics by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

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.

Comment on Ongoing Questions about PLOS ONE’s Peer Review by Akilah

0
0

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.

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016 by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

Yes. You are welcome to use the data and information. Good luck with your presentation.

Comment on Article on Fallacious and Pseudoscientific Thought Worth a Read by The Philosopher

0
0

Dear Beall

would you please check about this “http://www.praiseworthyprize.org/jsm/” Thank You

Comment on Article on Fallacious and Pseudoscientific Thought Worth a Read by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

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.

Comment on Article on Fallacious and Pseudoscientific Thought Worth a Read by Jason Travers

0
0

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.

Jason Travers
University of Kansas

Comment on Medical Journal Accepts Sting Paper, Gets Tipped Off, Retracts by Sting operation forces predatory publisher to pull paper - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

0
0

[…] 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 […]

Comment on Article on Fallacious and Pseudoscientific Thought Worth a Read by Researcher

0
0

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.

Comment on August’s Harvest: Three Wretched Open-Access Publishers by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

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.

Browsing All 10802 Browse Latest View Live