?? As far as I know, ORCID can be used free of charge by any researcher.
Brings to mind Kryton from Red Dwarf: “Sm… Sm…”
Advocacy science is not limited to the “junk journals” but can be slipped into real science journals. A lot of the scientific journals all the way to Science (AAAS) have been contaminated with some advocacy science, especially in the environmental areas that I follow. Some of it is subtle and just leaves a deliberately misleading impression.
Jacobs, M., et al. (2002). “Investigation of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzo-p-furans and selected coplanar biphenyls in Scottish farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).” Chemosphere 47(2): 183-191.
Farmed and wild Scottish Atlantic salmon were obtained from retail suppliers, producers, and Stirling University in Scotland during January, 1999, for determination of 17 2,3,7,8-Cl-substituted PCDDs and PCDFs, and seven non-ortho- and mono-ortho-PCBs. The study confirms previous reports of relatively high concentrations of PCDDs, PCDFs and, especially, PCBs in farmed Scottish salmon. The results indicate that high consumption of salmon, particularly by children under 5 years, could lead to intakes above the tolerable daily intake (TDI) and tolerable weekly intake (TWI) for these chemicals, especially the PCBs, when combined with mean or high level intakes from the typical UK diet. These results suggest further investigation of farmed salmon and salmon feed, including feed fortified with fish oil and feed fortified with selected vegetable oils, is warranted.
The first sentence of the abstract states “farmed and wild” with the impression that both were measured and the second sentence states that farmed is contaminated, leaving the impression that the wild wasn’t equally contaminated. However, in the actual paper, the results reported no “statistically significance difference” between farmed and wild. In fact, all the wild data was same as the farmed, but with a lower variance, which is a significant indication that the ocean water was a significant contributor, not farming for feeds.
As we all know in today’s world, too many authors have only read the abstracts of papers they use as references in areas they “believe” to be established truth. This paper then is referenced as showing that farmed fish are contaminated relative to wild fish in quality journals like Science.
When this advocacy science then moves into regulations, real damage is done with no correction methods.
Eureka / Bentham meetings are noted for being advertised under multiple names, in order to increase the number of people registering. Thus if you attend a “Global Biotech Congress”, you will find that you are also attending a “Drug Discovery and Therapy World Congress”, which shares the same speakers and meeting rooms. This might sound like value for money, but it suggests a certain lack of focus about the agenda.
Reputable conferences do not operate with an alias. This GBC / DDTWC scam is just another way of scraping up papers for Bentham’s junk mockademic journals (where the proceedings are publlished).
Its a dramatic news to know one of the most popular journal changed their policy and publish any fake article.
I hope this wrong policy will change soon.
I have noticed that one characteristic of questionable conferences (e.g. those run by predatory publishers) is that they never seem to have complete programs from past conferences on their webpages. At least in my area (economics) it is extremely unusual for conferences not have past programs on their webpages. If true in other areas, I would suggest that this would be a good indicator of questionable conferences.
[…] Is It Time to Retire ResearcherID? […]
Dear Jeffrey Beall,
I saw scientific Research Publishing in your list. Please explain the reason. Also what is meant by google based impact factor?
In this publishing group I saw good papers in “Journal of environmental protection”. Please reply whether I can go for this journal or not.
[…] Conference-Organizer WASET Continues Copying Names of Legitimate Conferences […]
Searching “ResearcherID indexed” led me to a IJRIM LinkedIn account:
The role of “euroasiapub.org” in the ecosystem is to provide a bottom-of-the-barrel dumping ground, where academics who need “publications” to keep their phony jobs can dump whatever collection of words they have strung together or copied from elsewhere, never to be read again.
So the scammers do everything they can to warn serious researchers that “we are not even worth your contempt”… like the Algerian typeface (an agreement seems to have emerged among mockademic publishers and scamference organisers to use Algerian as a signal of their grifting intentions)… or the fact that their Publishing Editor (“Professor Monika chapagain”) is a piece of pirated stock-art for “Sexy College Lecturer”.
In this context, their boasting of a ResearcherID (L-5236-2015) as if it confered some kind of legitimacy or acceptance, is just the cherry on top. It’s just another warning of the grifters’ worthlessness. They know that it means no more than, say, putting up a vehicle’s numberplate, or the number on an Ooky-Spooky Fan-Club Membership Card. Their customers must know that adorning the journal with a purloined “ResearcherID” doesn’t mean that their productions wlll be indexed or disseminated, but they don’t care (no-one publishes in the likes of “IJRIM” expecting the word-dropping to be read at all).
I’m coming to a kind of point… although Clarivate Analytics may not be “maintaining the integrity of the ResearcherID database”, would it make any difference if they did? Scammers could just make a number up (I have no idea whether “L-5236-2015” is a legitimate ID or not). Or they would find some other random meaningless identifier to dress up their bizarre parodies of academic status.
I have documented problems with SCIRP in my blog, so I invite you to search this initialism using my blog’s search functionality and read the blog posts I’ve written about them.
The so-called Google-based impact factor is a completely bogus metric.
I recommend against sending papers to any SCIRP journal; this publisher is included on my list.
There is no cost to an author to get an ORCID ID.
ORCID _should_ be “the best thing since sliced bread” (if that is a good thing). ORCID hasn’t yet reached that height.
I desperately want to love all things ORCID but so far I’m disappointed. Like Christie’s Miss Lemon I dream of a filing system that allows a perfect author search system. I fear that ORCID is going to be focused upon its organizational needs for quite a while and that its author-disambiguation role is slipping away. I hope that things improve soon.
how comedy it is. the journal claiming that their office in Malaysia but provided contact number belongs to INDIA.
I would like to know your opinion on cases where the journal is not on your list but the publisher is on the list you blacklisted.
When I add a publisher to my list, this listing applies to all the journals from that publisher. I prefer to add only publishers whenever possible, because there are many thousands of individual journals. The standalone journals list, with a few exceptions, is only for single journals with no named publisher on the website.
Dear Jeffrey I need your comments:
I published my articles in the Journal of renewable agriculture, International Research Journal of Horticulture saying they are localized in USA but now I can not even find their existing website for references. What is your advice.
Also I would like to ask if you have any informations on the following journals:
– Journal of Agricultural Science and Food Technology
– Journal of Entomology and Zoology studies
– Asian Academic Research Journal of Multidisciplinary
Best regards and happy new year
I didn´t know about this fake industry, but I suspected something was bigger than the journal listed below.
I couldn´t find it on your list (as of Dec 31,2016):
I don´t know how to get my email, but they keep bugging me to send manuscripts. They ask directly for $ (via pay pal of course) and the editorial board seems too broad.
Great job on your blog and happy 2017
It appears that the information in this posting “Publisher’s Journals Boast Amazingly High Impact Factors” may be a little out of date. I am not writing to purposefully defend IARIA, just to present my honest reaction to reading the posting. IARIA’s listing of journals does not currently show any impact factors. Perhaps showing elevated impact factors was simply an early mistake that IARIA has now corrected. As well, the organizations behind each journal seems legitimate, with Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Advisory Board, and Editorial Board, all seemingly staffed by accredited academicians. They don’t appear to have violated a lot of the criteria making them deserving to be on your List of Publishers.
The IARIA website states that IARIA is a non-profit non-governmental organization and lists Petre Dini as ONE of the founders and active volunteers, along with the names of others. So where did this posting get the information that IARIA is a company owned by Petre Dini? And the phrasing “operated by Petre Dini from his mansion” makes it all sound like a scam.
Its true that Concordia lists Petre Dini within the category “Affiliated Professors” but there are also listings of “Affiliated Associate Professors” and “Affiliated Assistant Professors”. So he is really listed as an affiliated full professor, which is what his bio states: “affiliated as a Full Professor”.
Thanks for this posting, but it appears overly critical and needs to be updated.
I forgot to include in my previous comment that I have presented a paper at an IARIA conference and don’t understand the view that the conference registration fees are high. I paid $US 710 as the registration fee, which is comparable to the registration fee charged by other conferences. I just paid $US 900 to attend the IEEE RAMS conference in Orlando in January 2017.