Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Scholarly Open Access
Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on “Please add my journal to your list” by Blogger writes about predatory publishing, is threatened with $1B suit | Padroni

0
0

[…] ink in places like The New York Times. (And yes, now he even receives pseudo-spammer journals who request to be featured on the site without really […]


Comment on OMICS Ineptly Uses Social Media to Promote its Brands by lem

0
0

As an Indian living in India and being inundated by such practices everyday, I must say it’s funny to see a foreigner’s perspective on it. The sad part is that even today, the system enforces such ethics into people. Even when you’re trying to do simple things like lab reports by yourself instead of copying it off of previously made reports like everyone else, it goes totally unappreciated. Slowly most kids start having this mentality that the “end” is the only thing, means are unimportant. Sadly a lot of these “ends” aren’t good either.

Comment on OMICS Ineptly Uses Social Media to Promote its Brands by jbshaldane

0
0

You can say “Paki” in India to refer to Pakistanis. Not considered offensive.

Comment on More Controversy Over Open-Access Publisher MDPI by Ifraeem

0
0

Mr. Beall, if someone ask you about any journal it does not mean that he is asking due to journal’s predatory activities. Many people ask just for a second opinion. Ok………. Now tell me what do you think about these journals, i am evaluating them nowadays: jbsq.org and http://www.mecs-press.org/journals.html

Inform me asap by replying in comments.

Comment on More Controversy Over Open-Access Publisher MDPI by bcohen99

0
0

What is most troubling is reading that a Reuters reporter sees what he/she thinks is a mainstream scientific journal, but does no further journalistic research to find out if that assumption is accurate. Nowadays, an apparent scientific journal can actually operate
more like a magazine, except for charging the authors instead of paying the authors.

Comment on More Controversy Over Open-Access Publisher MDPI by Tomasz Leski

0
0

Some of my colleagues publish papers with their Sensors journal, which seems to be a decent journal with more than 10 years of history (with rather modest impact factor around 2). However MDPI recently expanded and added a huge number of new journals with very uninspiring titles (e.g. Atoms, Computers, Climate, Cosmetics, Diseases, Fibers, Galaxies, Laws, Machines, Microorganisms, Proteomes, Risks, Toxics, Vaccines), which have little or no content. Looks like they are out to make more money taking advantage of a few decent titles they inherited from previous publisher.

Comment on Spam from Predatory Open Access Publishers is Dominating my Inbox by conficio

0
0

There is a good cure for e-mail SPAM – digital signatures. If lots of people (meaning most) do digitally sign their e-mails, then you can be sure of who is the sender and block anything that you don’t like. As digital signatures can be validated (by companies, as well as by any individual), you can reject any unknown signature, if it is nto signed by someone you trust, like a colleague validated that this signature belongs to the person/organization that claims its his/her.

Start the cycle, sign you own e-mail with PGP. Create a key (free), have it signed by colleagues, friends, etc. and publish it for validation.

Comment on “Please add my journal to your list” by naomi

0
0

it’s a bit unfair to conclude with “Be wary of all OA journals.” when the original article was published in Journal of Biology/BMC Biology, itself an Open Access journal, and a reputable one at that. The problem is not OA but scammers, and a scammer is generally fairly easy to spot.


Comment on “Please add my journal to your list” by Jeffrey Beall

Comment on More Controversy Over Open-Access Publisher MDPI by Dietrich Rordorf

0
0

We invite scientists, who consider an article published by MDPI to be problematic, to submit their findings and position directly to the Editorial Office of the concerned journal (in this case: entropy@mdpi.com). We will review the feedback and share it with both the authors and editors of the journal. We treat all feedback with utmost respect, and suggestions for improvement are always welcome.

MDPI performs a standardized (single) blind peer-review process on all articles. The peer-review is organized by our in-house staff under the supervision of an academic editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief of a journal). We solely rely on senior scholars for peer-reviewing the manuscripts submitted to MDPI journals. We have appropriate controls in place to avoid any publication of manuscripts without acceptance by reviewers and the academic editors. The final decision to publish a paper is taken by our Guest Editors and Editors-in-Chief, which have no financial or material incentive to either reject or accept papers, other than the desire to progress science. The review article mentioned within this blog was submitted to MDPI as part of a Special Issue for Entropy in January 2013, and was published in April 2013 after the completion of our standard process. The Special Issue was titled “Biosemiotic Entropy: Disorder, Disease, and Mortality”. It should be noted here that this is a review paper, and not an original article.

We reject the comment added to this post suggesting the “journal uses the pyramid-like scheme of hiring guest editors”, as this insinuates we are hiring guest editor to exploit others. Guest Editors work for MDPI on an honorary basis to progress scholarly research in their field of expertise. MDPI does not pay guest editors, and relies on the goodwill and support of the community.

We would like to add: if all scholars were concerned with publishing “non-controversial” and “conformant” research, we would miss out on much discourse and, in some cases, progress. We are aware that there are many opinions out there, and the Internet provides a forum for anyone to voice their opinion (in contrast to the peer-reviewed article). You refer to three other ‘controversial’ articles published by MDPI: not all the 25’000 articles published by us in the last 17 years have come under scrutiny, however we are always open to feedback, and would like to reiterate that readers can always reach out to us via our website with their concerns.

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 by benabrahamse

0
0

As an ARL librarian I have forwarded this to our office of scholarly communications to make sure they get the word out. You are doing a great service.

Comment on The Serials Crisis is Over. by OneLibrarian

0
0

Exactly. Libraries now face the same business model presented to home cable TV subscribers: pay for tons of useless, unused crap to get a handful of useful resources.

Comment on The Serials Crisis is Over. by Sheogorath

0
0

Publishers add a lot of value to research after the research is completed, and the public does not pay for that.
That’s true enough, Mr. Beall, but open access journals are able to provide the same value for a minimal cost or even for free, and then pass along that huge saving to those seeking access to the knowledge contained within. So the need for open access isn’t nonexistent, it’s vindicated.
“The strawman you have erected has not been recognised. Please check, and debate again.”

Comment on Appeals by foodpixie

0
0

Dr. Beall,

I noticed that SciDoc publishers was on your list. I must admit, when they emailed me to be an editor I was flattered, but I keep thinking it’s a scam but have no real proof. Why are they on the list? I am uncomfortable being involved with shady academic scams so I want to make sure that disassociating myself from the company is the best course of action.

Thank you.

Comment on “Please add my journal to your list” by Blogger writes about predatory publishing, is threatened with $1B suit | News Science Technology

0
0

[…] ink in places like The New York Times. (And yes, now he even receives pseudo-spammer journals who request to be featured on the site without really […]


Comment on OMICS Ineptly Uses Social Media to Promote its Brands by Sri

0
0

I’m an Indian too and feel disheartened by the current state of affairs. There is not enough voice against practices like this yet and I’m positive a lot of people fall for this scam in our own country.

Comment on More Controversy Over Open-Access Publisher MDPI by Jeffrey Beall

0
0

I don’t see any major problems with this publisher. It appears that they are open access but don’t charge article processing fees at this time. I did see a couple small examples of plagiarism and self-plagiarism. The publisher requires copyright transfer. The papers bear a copyright statement but are open access. I will not be adding this publisher to my list at this time. It looks like they are putting in much effort to operate professionally.

Comment on OMICS Ineptly Uses Social Media to Promote its Brands by The Journal of Primatology | Monkeyologist

0
0

[…] Open Access, has critized the journals of the OMICS Publishing Group multiple times, including this great report on their inept use of social media: fake Linkedin profiles with “wonderfully alphabetic […]

Comment on More Controversy Over Open-Access Publisher MDPI by gggpimentel

0
0

Dear Jeffrey Beall,

We have a doubt. We were invited for a submission on http://scholarly-journals.com. Considering the possibility of a chance for a publication, perhaps your sir could say something about this particularly journal. We found out odd this invitation.

Guga Pimentel & Ernesto Bueno.

Comment on Research by Jack

Viewing all 10802 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images