@Jeffrey Beall: Yes, but you seem to have your own agenda in relation to journals and open access, and some of the criteria you use for inclusion in the list, such as “The company exists solely for the purpose of earning money [...]” seem to be rather subjective factors. Do Elsevier, Springer and Nature not also exist (solely) for the purpose of earning money? Do that make the stuff that comes from them any less scientific? Why do we have other standards for journals, metrics, etc. that are newer and come mainly from the third world?
If this “real” impact factor isn’t freely available, I’m a bit unsure why anyone should take that into consideration. But of course if the Hindawi journals claim to have one impact factor according to this statistic, and they are really listed with a different value, then that is not OK. As a librarian I imagine you have access to this report. If we could get the name of the journal which supposedly is doing this on the table, then you would be able to validate the claim made above, right?
