Questions related to Open Access Publishing
Dear researchers. If we want to publish a paper in a hybrid-type journal and choose the non-open access option (for subscribers only), is it literally free, or is there still a possibility of paying a less charge than APC in their open access option? How can we identify it?
Research chemists continue in their slow uptake of preprints. I've lately suggested one key reason for this unique behaviour of scholars in the basic sciences in two OA studies, one published by Publications:
and another by Insights:
What is your opinion on the origin of this delay? Has your team recently embraced preprint publishing? What are your favorite preprint repositories?
Thank you in advance for your insight.
let me preface by saying my field is functional morphology (of the dentition), in both biological and paleontological contexts. Through my current position in a multidisciplinary institute, and on a highly diverse campus, I have made many friends from different disciplines. Amongst them a lot of physicists, and naturally we talk about work and the subject of publishing papers of course comes up, too.
I noted a striking difference: they often say "we just published this paper" and mean, they have just uploaded on arXiv.org. Moreover, first uploading to pre-print archives, and seeking publication much later, is totally accepted, it even seems encouraged and just the norm.
I feel in my field, we are still thinking of pre-prints as being "no real publications", and will seek peer-reviewed publication first - only uploading to pre-print servers if the journal permits to upload the submitted version.
My question is, what is he perception in your field? Are we robbing ourselves of opportunities by not engaging with pre-print archives more? Should this change?And where do these different publication practices in the different sciences come from?
I am interested in your insight.
I recently discovered that many open access advocates are publishing their work on open access in paid journals. Is it justified or fair enough that a researcher working on open access and advocating its immediate application across the globe is publishing their own open access research in pay-walled journals? What is your opinion in this regard?
I'm helping set up a new journal, and I'm trying to avoid building Word/LaTeX templates from scratch. There are a ton of templates out there for existing journals, of course! I would love to simply reuse any of them, perhaps tweaking them slightly for our own journal. But I haven't found a template that explicitly allows for modification and reuse. Does anyone have any suggestion where to look or if you have one you are willing to share?
Recently all Peer-Reviewed (SCI) Journals are consistently supporting open access publishing practices. My concern is that, it will not be very arduous for researchers from poor country to publish articles in such journals?. Most of researchers from different countries who cannot afford that much money due to lack of research grants including funds crisis etc.. Is this really a good move in scientific academia?. It is like benefiting the same rich sections and it seem like scientific business rather than good freely quilty research? Now the house is open for enlightened thought in this regard.
One of my research papers was rejected without being sent for peer review but I have just found a highly similar paper published by the same journal. Now can I request for an explanation from the journal for this double standard policy?
I recently got an invitation as a potential reviewer from "firstname.lastname@example.org", In the email (see below), there was no mention of the group to which the journal belonged and the email has not been mentioned on the website of the journal.
Have you had any encounters with The Open Civil Engineering Journal yet? What do you think of them? Or do you think it is a fake email?
Thank you very much to you all for your valuable contributions which will benefit us all.
Here is the email in question:
March 3, 2022
Dr. AB Alsamawi
Dept Civil Engn
EOLE Res Lab, BP 230, Tilimsen
Dear Dr. Alsamawi,
In view of your work in the field, your name has been recommended, as a potential reviewer, for the manuscript entitled “...........” that has been submitted for publication in the journal “The Open Civil Engineering Journal”. Please review the abstract below, to see if it comes in your direct field of expertise, and provide us a confirmation of your willingness to review the complete manuscript. I hope that you will be able to help us.
Abstract: Aims: ........... Background: .......... Objective: ........ Results: ............
I would appreciate it if you could kindly respond to this message at your earliest. Since we are endeavoring to provide an efficient review process for our authors, we would request that you send your comments and recommendations, if any, back to us as soon as possible.
In addition to carrying out this review, we would also like to propose your name, as a reviewer, to be included in the Reviewer Panel of this journals, and possibly others relevant to your field. Our Reviewer Portal will also offer its reviewers the following benefits and discounts on other Bentham services:
• A free eBook of their Choice, on completion of two reviews
• A 50% Fee Waiver on Quick Track rates on completion of 3 reviews
• A 40% discount on Open Access Plus rates on completion of 4 reviews
As a member of our Reviewer panel, you would be expected to review a maximum of 3 articles every year. Please also note that to expedite the review, this request has been sent to several qualified researchers and once we get the first three commitments to review, we will not entertain any further acceptances.
Thank you for your consideration.
Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization (JIMO) is an open access journal. You pay a substantial amount to publish a paper. When you go to the website of its publisher, American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS Press), it seems that it is not really based in the United States. I am not sure if it is a legitimate professional organization or if it is a predatory publisher. They have a large number of open access journals. On the other hand, their handling of papers is terrible: extremely slow and low-tech, which is not typical for predatory journals. It may take 13 months to get an editorial rejection, for instance. Furthermore, they don't have an online submission system with user profiles on it, you just submit the paper on a website, and they give you a URL to check your paper's status, which makes your submission open to anyone who has the URL. It has an impact factor of 1.3, which makes me puzzled. Any comments on this organization and the journal will be appreciated.
The problem is that I can not recognize what is predatory publisher and what is not. Why? Because some superiors (often professors or groups with certain interests) claim that this or that publisher is bad, with predatory traits.
This negative campaign is being run against publishers whose journals are indexed in the Web of Science or Scopus databases.
Do you think it's perfectly okay to publish in journals indexed in WoS / Scopus? Or can these databases index stacks of predatory publishing journals?
Of course, there can be some mistakes in the order of units..
Please help share this including your opinions, thanks.
The Publishing Industry is a robber of knowledge democracy, especially for us who live in the Global South. The Publishing Industry, of late, has been asking for a mandatory so-called Article Processing Fee (APC). In my opinion, this is pure theft. These publishers are increasing limiting options to choose from when submitting a manuscript. They will not, for example, give you a choice to NOT PAY A FEE, or ASK FOR A WAIVER. The only option you are given is: I AM WILLING TO PAY THE APC upon acceptance of my paper. This is daylight robbery.
For knowledge democracy and decolonization of knowledge, works from the Global South should be published open access and with APCs waived. It is encouraging to see that MDPI and Hindawi are learning that and doing it very quickly. The "Western" Publishing Industry should copy what MDPI and Hindawi are doing and set researchers in the Global South free.
You are welcome to continue this discussion.
I'm interested in repositories like zenodo, figshare, etc., where open-access papers (previously published) can be uploaded in order to improve the visibility of papers. Thanks a lot for your suggestions!
I have just published a book with a big international science publisher (CRC Press, a branch of Taylor and Francis). The multi-author edited book is nice and hopefully useful for many (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321016401_Grasslands_of_the_world_diversity_management_and_conservation), but the experiences with the publisher were so disappointing that some co-authors and I decided to start a public discussion on writing scientific books in the age of greedy publishers.
Here are some key facts of our collaboration with CRC/Francis and Taylor:
· The communication with the publisher was very unreliable and inefficient: e.g. did we receive various requests multiple times and the publisher “forgot” about previous written agreements.
· The typesetting as the only service provided by the publisher was very poor: about 90% of the changes made by the publisher introduced errors into previously correct text or tables and it was very time-consuming for us to find all these errors and remove them again.
· Instead of paying the authors a honorarium for their work, the publisher forced us to pay for the colour figures in our articles.
· The publisher refused to give the authors a complimentary print copy of their book (only the editors got one).
· First the publisher wanted to provide an electronic version of the chapter/book only to each corresponding author, not to all authors, and only after serious negotiations they accepted to provide e-books to all authors. We assumed that these would be functional pdf’s, but instead they received the books in a very weird e-book format with a display in an ugly and hardly readable layout (e.g. all text in bold), not allowing proper printing nor sharing parts of the content (e.g. single pages or figures) with others. This means that the authors did not receive any printed or electronic copy of that exactly corresponds to the published version of their own work.
I am extremely frustrated about the behaviour of CRC/Francis and Taylor and consider the last point as being at the edge of unethical. My feeling is that CRC might only reflect the strategy of most international science publishers to maximise profit by pressing money out of both authors and readers/libraries, while at the same time minimising the service they provide. On the other hand my gut feeling tells me that nowadays with cheap print-on-demand technology and the possibility to distribute printed or open access e-books without the need to involve a big marketing/distribution machinery should allow for other solutions.
Therefore, I would like to ask you two questions:
· Did you make similar experiences with other science publishers, or are they better or even worse?
· Do you see ways how those among us who would like to continue to write nice and useful books can do this without sacrificing themselves to profit-maximisation strategy of the big international science publishers?
Looking forward to your responses and hoping for a lively debate,
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Dengler
(ZHAW, Wädenswil, Switzerland)
I have enjoyed listening to podcasts to learn about scientific communication, research methodology, peer review, open access, preprints, scientometrics, and other topics. I am interested if anyone has a podcast they like that discusses any of these topics. Here are some that I have listened to so far:
The Scholarly Kitchen Podcast
Science Communication Journal Club Podcast
Author expresses polite request to recommend a journal in Comparative Literature which accepts:
i. submissions discussing semi-forgotten poets of Russian fin-de-siecle i.i.submissions discussing a single cycle in enitre ouvre of such figure,
ii. submissions from seemingly unremarkable graduate students
iii. submissions analyzing literature from aesthetical standpoint, with minimal relevance to burning social issues and their solutions, however defined.
[Prehistory: I'm a promising, and so far not much more, graduate student, who managed to not publish anything so far. I have no regrets though, both because world needs more reading and less writing, and simply for looking at my old drafts.]
I'm finishing an article about Nikolay Gumilyov (Николай Гумилёв, Gumilyev, Gumil'ev) - who, surprisingly for several Scopus-listed journals, is not the same person as his son, Lev Gumilyov, and whom I find shockingly understudied and underappreciated. Never particularly popular in the West, today, with interests shifting... well, away from Russian aristocratic aesthetes, he seems to be almost forgotten. Similarly in Central Europe, or at least in Poland, where I come from: before perestroika Gumilyov was "unpublishable" in Soviet Union, so it was difficult to get acquainted with his poetry when knowledge of Russian was fairly widespread, and today hardly anyone knows the language or has much interest in such topics (understandably, yet sadly). In Russia, on the other hand, he has his place in the canon secured, but it comes with a price of being incorporated into the lore of state ideology.
Fortunately, here I am with my article on his Italian Poems. While I think the article is very decent, it's not the most en vogue topic. On top of that, nolens volens, I end up arguing with almost every critic I refer to. And still, I need to publish it to face my supervisor with my head high, and also because turning this great poet into a misspelled footnote to Akhmatova and Mandelsham, or a banner woven from misinterpretations, is un-for-giv-a-ble.
Which leads to my point, as I can no longer ignore the burning question where I'm planning to submit my untimely meditations, composed in English. To make things worse, while I do offer some original input, there is no grand synthesis, the thing is quite specific. Too specific for a generalist journal, I guess, but I could try something on Modernism, or Decadence, or correspondence of arts, or Italy/Italianism. I will be grateful for any suggestions, or at least warnings!
Obviously, it would be good if our work would be open for access by anyone. Publishing open access, however, is expensive especially for most researchers in developing countries. Would you mind sharing insights on how you promote your work?
I would like to ask you to share your experience for publishing in MDPI special issues:
1- It seems they are getting benefit from Invited Guest Editors to write and present a short proposal about a specific topic. This is purely an honorary position and after this step, the staff of MDPI (who are not from the academy) will proceed with everything. They receive manuscripts from authors and send the manuscript for revision. In many cases, if the article is accepted with a major revision, only 5 days will be given by the assistant editor to revise the manuscript!!!
2- High publishing cost (almost 2000 CHF) is another negative point.
3- It seems 100 CHF gift for reviewers is attractive enough for many people who voluntarily work as a reviewer without having enough experience in that topic. The reviewers only ask for modifying graphs and tables and suggesting their article as a reference!!!
4- I personally prefer to submit to a journal with a professional academic editor who is really familiar with the topic and after acceptance to pay for open access.
5- The impact factor of special issues is high, but i think this is neither related to the quality of the articles nor the journal. This is mainly due to the open acces of journals that articles can receive more citations!
6- The positive point from my side is that they are quite fast and within one month you will receive the result, either accepted or rejected!
They know how to play the game and get advantages from the name and position of guest editors by offering discounts!
My main point is if you have high-quality work submit it to a high-quality journal and if you are interested to make your work more visible, just pay for open access.
This discussion is precipitated by a discussion in a list serve that I am subscribed to concerning predatory publishing and the issue of working with and publishing in MDPI journals.
In my experience, when the subject of MDPI journals is put forward, this tends to raise polarizing discourses and opinions.
My question: What has been your experience in dealing with MDPI journals either as guest editor, author or reviewer?
Recently, researchers in Poland published this study that goes some way to addressing this polemic.
See: Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 102271. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133320301622
Choosing a journal for the publication of research articles is becoming increasingly difficult and a source of concern. Most often, the researcher struggles to determine the article's weight and is rejected. So, how should we go about choosing a journal? Do you have any suggestions that you find useful? I'd be extremely grateful.
I plan to post a research pre-print in arXiv.org of a paper that I already submitted for publication in a journal.
If the pre-print gets cited, I wonder if the citations can be attributed to its corresponding journal article once it gets published.
I hope those with experience on this can provide some insights below.
Recently, some of the reputable open access journals have attracted great attention from researchers around the world. This raises many questions about the continued credibility and scientific impact of these journals in the next years.
There are common terms pointing to unapproved publishing journals, like fake, predatory, phishing ... etc. Can someone help clarifying the differences between these terms?
It is well known of the importance of statistics in research to support your answers. Please define
any statistical test, what does it do and where to apply them.
Please explain the difference between test and statistical test.
The tests such as chi square are they normal tests or are statistical? Please give examples of both and explain as much as possible.
(the blood and urine tests are completely different tests and should be considered separately. In the same way as biochemical assays. Is there anything to add to the tests explained, tests, "as chi square" and statistical tests?)
Any kind of contribution will be welcome. I will from time to time add some tests to explain/complete or set names. I think it is an important question.
In the publications how many different kinds of journals/publications are there and please give an explaination to them. I could start by saying predatory, sleeping beauties and what was the name for a "common journal"? If there is another name I can find I will add it in. I would like to make a document with all your answers and load it to the question.
Maybe I will exclude if they are redundant. I might add threads of more questions related to the subject.
Thank you very much
Most, if not all, publishers approach the acquisition of original work through the transfer of publication rights of the author to those of the publisher. Hence, the copyright is given to the publisher vs. the author. I propose that instead of lessening the value of published works through Open Access, publishers should offer authors the opportunity to benefit more from their own work. My interest is to create a publishing house who LEASES original works while guaranteeing copyright to the author. Of course, individual agreements would include a negotiated percentage of compensation above publishing costs, length of lease, marketing responsibilities, etc. When you answer, please tell me if you are new to publishing, have published in journals, or have published books. It would also be nice to know how many estimated items in journals and/or book publications. Thank you!
The Beall's web site scholarly-oa.com does not host the Beall's list of predatory journals and publishers anymore.
I have recenly found a web site https://predatoryjournals.com/ which claims to build on it and expand this list (see https://predatoryjournals.com/about/ ).
What do you think of it?
Update [August 1, 2019]: The question was originally posted on December 26, 2017 but now it looks like the site in question remains dormant and was not updated since 2017, which makes the question somewhat moot.
Both strategies: High Impact Factor or established journal - have different functions, other positive aspects and other limitations are not fully comparable.
Which strategies are considered to be more appropriate depends on the privities who the researcher writing the scientific papers deems more important. In the context of this issue an important question arises: Do you publish in scientific journals with a high Impact Factor but representing related or other fields of knowledge against the scientific specialty of the researcher who sends his scientific texts for publication?
Do you, however, publish in journals with a lower Impact Factor, which represent the field of knowledge in which the researcher specializes and writes his scientific texts? Which strategy is chosen by individual researchers, scientists and research and teaching staff of the university depends on whether the prime points are collected IF for the institution, which the researcher affirms, or more important is the citation of written texts in a given field, but more important is the issue of publishing in magazines whose titles are closely correlated with the problems of scientific texts written by the researcher.
Do you agree with me on the above matter?
In the context of the above issues, the following question is valid:
What are the key priorities for you when choosing a scientific journal for publishing scientific texts?
I invite you to the discussion
Thank you very much
I founded an open-access academic journal titled Journal of Emerging Computer Technologies (JECT) that will start publishing in 2021 and it has no processing, publishing, open-access or any other charges for authors. http://ject.izmiracademy.com
Would you like to contribute by sending an article to a newly established journal?
What are your thoughts on newly established journals?
It starts with some background
The China/Asia On Demand (CAOD) site (https://caod.oriprobe.com/index.htm) uses the name “International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research” with ISSN 1674-0440. A real Chinese subscription-based journal https://caod.oriprobe.com/journals/gwyx-yxfc/INTERNATIONAL_JOURNAL_OF_PHARMACEUTICAL_RESEARCH.htm
However, the ISSN nr. 1674-0440 uses “Guoji yaoxue yanjiu zazhi” https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1674-0440 and is linked to the same Chinese subscription-based journal but now uses the name “Journal of International Pharmaceutical Research” (http://126.96.36.199:81/Jweb_jipr/EN/article/showOldVolumn.do does not seem to work well but indicate its true existence). See also enclosed pictures (bit poor resolution but the best I was able to pick up).
If you ‘Google’ for example the paper with the title “Alliin and related active components:research advances” you see both titles popping up so indeed both are the same. The “Journal of International Pharmaceutical Research” ISSN 1674-0440 is Scopus indexed: https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100881509 which seems to correspond to the above mentioned genuine Chinese subscription-based journal.
Then the deception starts...
However, this journal is hijacked by “Journal of International Pharmaceutical Research” using the same ISSN nr. 1674-0440: http://ijprjournals.com/ with contact: email@example.com
Since 2009 there is a journal with the similar name as the genuine Chinese one “International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research (IJPR)”, but with a different ISSN 0975-2366 that seems to be indexed in Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/19700174645 This journal “International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research (IJPR)” with ISSN 0975-2366 (http://ijpronline.com/Default.aspx ) presents itself as a subscription-based journal though all papers can be found on RG and/or Academia.edu and once submitting https://www.ejmanager.com/my/ijpr/ it appears you have to pay fee which is misleading and dubious. They use a SCImago link (with a picture of the wrong journal “Journal of international pharmaceutical research”): https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19700174645&tip=sid&exact=no
I predict that this journal will be discontinued soon, since last year they ‘all of a sudden’ published 690 papers in 2019 and 2488 papers in 2020 (while it ‘normally’ was round 50 or so).
http://ijprjournals.com/ fake and hijacked version of the real one with ISSN 1674-0440
http://ijpronline.com/Default.aspx predatory and one better stay away from (presumably they will lose their Scopus indexing).
PS. Both the IJPRonline site and SCImago make a mess out of it since they depict the image of “Journal of International Pharmaceutical Research” ISSN 1674-0440: https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100881509 while they talk about “International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research”.
We are preparing to submit a manuscript in field of Computational Chemistry (Computer aided-drug design). However. due to our current budget we won't be able to afford the cost of the processing fees charged by most open access journals.
Is there any available free-to-publish journal(s) that can publish our work - either open access or "society" journals?
In peer review,
Does the innovative of idea in article is besed on methodolgy , or study area, or the used dataset or all of them?
How editors and reviewers evaluate the innovative idea of article ?
Thanks in advance
There are several journals with varying impact factors. Still we find journals having no impact factor. I want to know whether the impact or importance of a researcher becomes less to a scientific community when he/she publishes a paper in a journal with low impact factor or no impact factor?
While APCs (fees for publication costs or fees for open access) vary, some of them are quite high as 1000-2000 CHF. Although some publishers have schemes for waiving APCs for researchers from underdeveloped and developing countries, the amount is still quite high for the authors.
I was wondering about the practices of different institutions and countries:
- What is the current policy of your university/research institute/country on APCs?
- Where do the funds come from for APCs? and,
- Who is eligible for the funds?
I am a neuroscientist with a focus on imaging analyses in stroke populations.
My first scientific works were decently well received and were published in journals like Human Brain Mapping, Neuroimage or Neuroimage Clinical. The first two journals - both leading journals in the field of brain imaging - recently transitioned from subscription to full gold open access journals, the latter was established as an gold OA journal that I paid ~1.500€ for in 2016.
Today, publishing in these journals requires a fee betwen 2.900€ and 3.200€. Due to the Wiley DEAL with German universities, the fee for HBM is actually slightly lower, at ~2.400€. The same price range applies to many other OA journals.
At my university in Germany, we can pay OA publications thanks to a publication fund of the German Research Foundation, that pays OA fees up to 2.000€. However, this fund does not support publications at all that exceed 2.000€. A fee of 2.001€ has to be fully paid by the authors.
This is a fee that I cannot pay in any legal way. Even if I had a full research project grant of 3 years (worth a few hundred thousand €) by the German Research Foundation, this would only include 2.250€ support for publication fees - for a whole 3 year project that often yields multiple publications.
Note that I am aware that I don't need to publish in these journals, because more reasonably priced alternatives exist, as well as classic subscription journals. I could just publish everything in PlosONE. However, I am not an important, well-known or powerful scientist. We do not need to pretend that we only judge scientific works after reading them, but in fact quite much by the journal they were published in. And even if YOU don't do so, the next reviewer of my grant proposal might do so, judging a large body of low-impact journal papers as bad, while preferring the grant proposal of another researcher who published a large body of medium to high impact, expensive journal papers.
My question to you: How do you handle this situation? How do you pay the fees?
I also wonder if I am just too much of a novice in science, so that I eventually missed common strategies that nobody talks about. Some colleagues - with other PIs - told me that they just submit papers without considering the fees at all, because the PIs are willing and able to pay for impact.
Or is it just normal to include the department head as a co-author in some common, but shady agreement so that the department pays for it? If yes, how does this work? Can I be open about this or do I rather have to pretend I need feedback or similar 'scientific' input first to not be considered rude?
Or is it just my PI who might be unwilling to support my research output, because it is anyway a common practice to illeagly misapplicate funding bodies for such fees?
I am looking for advice regarding some of the low-cost but high impact journals for Business, Management, Leadership, Organizations & Entrepreneurship?
These could be open access or otherwise.
kindly advise, share links if possible.
In case my article is accepted in an open access journal (e.g. MDPI group) and I have to pay article processing charges (APC) to support open access but I do not have enough funds in my account then what are the options to pay APC.
Looking for funding agencies that can only support regarding APC and/or any individual from plant sciences (Plant Breeding and Genetics) who provides financial support on certain terms and conditions.
Dear friends, I am working on several research projects related to food waste but I don't know where to publish them. If I can get someone to suggest
My colleagues and I issue a journal "Social Phenomena". It is an nonprofit independent platform for scholars who support the open science movement and wish to share their knowledge with others. The mission of our journal is to help authors share their ideas with the Russian-speaking scientific audience. We translate all articles into Russian and publish them for free in open access. We also do not charge authors any fees because we believe that there is no place for commerce in science.
The theme of the next issue is "Giftedness: the conditions and factors". We welcome all authors from various branches of science who are interested in this topic and want to make their research open to fellow Russian scholars.
The additional info is in the attached file and here http://journal.socialphenomena.org/en/
Now a days almost all the publishers are encouraging to do open access publications. However, many academicians says that open access or online publications are not good and publishers are compromising with the quality of research publication due to publication fee.
What is your opinion? Kindly let me know.
Is the information published by BEALL'S LIST about Potential predatory scholarly open‑access publishers available in the following link accurate and reliable?
The Last updated of this page was on June 09, 2020.
Many journal publishers are opening their COVID-19 researches for free to the public. Among them which are the most useful? Is more famous one the better one?
If you got a research on COVID-19 on hand, which one of the following will you submit to ?
Which one is easiest to accept your publication?
Please vote as you like!
Other than those common opened platform below, you can also suggest any new ones you think is useful for COVID-19 research.
COVID-19 is putting a huge impact on the society by the isolation measures it brings. People are now working from home office, and every walks of life are pausing their usual work and life.
How about the booming exponential rise in COVID-19 researches? But a shut downed administrative team of the publishing office? And the loss of manpower towards battle over the. COVID-19 frontline?
With the limited journal space, will timely researches be delayed in publication? Which may miss out important messages towards the public!
Peer Review: Publishing in the time of COVID-19
What's your view?
If one has a (maybe transient) link to an open access version of a paper, how can we post it? Of course one can upload the unedited manuscript, but we all know that the edited one is much nicer to read...
We published one apper and I got a link, but dont know where to post it:
I can't post it as supplement (file needed), nor anywhere on the article page and there is no format which can be used to created a new contribution...
I found a similar question but without a usable idea (besides building a document including the link)
What is the main aspect you take into account when you plan to publish a good journal paper?
a) Journal impact factor, b) Journal reputation in the field, c) Publication speed, d) acceptance/rejection rate, e) Open access fees, f) Other aspects (please say)
You may choose one option only or re-order the options as you think more important.
This question is only one of several questions posed in our recently published open access paper at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/11/12/1430/pdf
1. What is the minimal number of degrees of freedom needed to describe the electromagnetic field of a single moving source? Same question for a gravitational field. Same question for any field propagating with the speed of light.
2. Is it possible to capture all of the information about such a field in one scalar, complex-valued pre-potential?
3. Can such a pre-potential be defined invariantly with respect to the Lorentz group? the conformal group?
4. Can the Lienard-Wiechert potential be derived without assuming an inverse-square law?
5. Must the electromagnetic field of a single moving source be either self-dual or anti-self-dual?
For (most of) the answers, see our recently published open access paper at
Nowadays, while submitting articles for publishing in impact factor journals, there is an option to submit and publish traditionally without cost or submit/publish for open access with the cost. I would like to know what is the effect on the speed of review and possibilities of publication in case of selecting either of the ways?
I just wanted to share some interesting insight from an "experiment" with open access. Recently I published a paper about Blockchain and SCM with Emerald Publishing. The paper was online for several weeks and I had roughly 15 downloads a day:
Fortunately, the publisher offered me to make the paper open access (I do not have any specific funding for that):
After that, the downloads tripled with roughly 40-50 downloads a day. Of course, this does not say anything about how often the paper will get cited, but it clearly shows that OA fills a need. It might also widen the gap between those institutions who can afford to pay for it and those who can not. In other words: research from affluent institutions might also get cited more, since it is simply easier to access it.
I am sharing the information about the list of hijacked and predatory journals. It is very very important for scientists across the globe particularly for young scientists who have little knowledge about the journals.
I am also attaching real journals' list for your information.
This is a list of journals that appear to have been hijacked, meaning that their websites or branding have been co-opted by a predatory journal or publisher. List of Hijacked Journals: https://predatoryjournals.com/hijacked/
Potential predatory scholarly open‑access publishers, BEALL'S LIST OF PREDATORY
JOURNALS AND PUBLISHERS: https://beallslist.weebly.com/
My current affiliation doesn't provide funding for open-access publishing. Are there any organizations that provide funding for open-access publishing, given that the topic is valuable enough? Or are there open-access journals that waive the article processing charges (APCs) for researchers in third-world countries?
Concerning Beall’s list of Predatory Journals and Publishers
First, let me state that Jeffry Beall compiled the predatory list. Jeffrey Beall was librarian at University of Colorado. He famously knew for his criticism of open access publishing and the creation of the list of predatory journals. Please read more about Jeffrey Beall on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall
To respond to your question, let me start by inviting you to read about Academic Journals at: http://www.academicjournals.org/about_us. Kindly pay specific attention to the section on “Inclusion in Jeffrey Beall’s List.” In this section, we transparently and clearly provide information about the inclusion of Academic Journals in the list and raised questions about the criteria, sincerity, and true intentions of Jeffry Beall. Kindly note that the Jeffrey Beall’s list is published in his personal blog and does not have any institutional backing. Therefore, the list is the opinion of an individual and not an institution. The personal opinion of Jeffrey Beall.
Several other commentators, institutions, and publishers have also raised questions about the list. One common question that kept re-occurring was, “why is the list targeting only open access publishers?” Except for a very few open access publishers like PLOS and BMC, it seems that every other open access publisher was included in the list. Additionally, even fewer were removed from the list after initial inclusion.
While the list is the personal opinion of Jeffrey Beall, an article authored by Jeffrey Beall provides us with an insight into his thinking and perhaps the rationale for the list. Please take some time to read the article by Jeffrey Beall. The article is also attached
Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access
The Jeffrey Beall’s list is questionable at the least and seems to target open access publishers like Academic Journals. While there was some wisdom to the intentions of the list, the lack of clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion from the list were however, questionable. The criteria listed were vague and unscientific. More importantly, the wholesome inclusion of reputable publishers like MDPI, Clute Institute, Hindawi, Academic Journals, etc without verification was worrisome. Please read more about criticism of Jeffrey Beall’s criteria for inclusion in the list https://www.scholarlyoa.net/beall_criteria.htm. Additionally, Jeffrey Beall shut down his blog (http://scholarlyoa.com/) and the list without any warning. Thus, raising even more questions.
Below are some commentaries about the Jeffrey Beall’s list
(1) Princeton University Blog - Anti-OA and the Rhetoric of Reaction
(2) Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall
Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall;
Although Jeffrey Beall has done us all a good service by coming up with his list of predatory publishers, his arguments against open access publishing have become shrill and reveal that he is expressing a political viewpoint that obscures the
(3) Cameo Replies to Beall's List of Howlers
(4) Beall’s Litter
Beall’s Litter - Michael Eisen
Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, has come to some fame in science publication circles for highlighting the growing number of “predatory” open access publishers and curating a list of them. His work has provided a useful service to people seeking to navigate the sometimes-confusing array of new journals – many legitimate, many scammers – that have popped...
(5) Beall’s Bile
(6) Below is an email from The Clute Institute regarding the Jeffrey Beall’s list
I was looking for a thread on Bentham Science Publishers on RG but could not find any.
I recently got an invitation fro the Current Environmental Engineering journal to act as a guest editor. In the email (see below), there was no mention of the group to which the journal belonged. I had to search the Internet for quite a while to eventually find it belonged to Bentham Science Publishers. This publisher appears to be quite questionable and Jeffrey Beall listed it as a potential predatory publisher.
Have you had any encounter with Current Environmental Engineering or Bentham Science Publishers yet? What do you think of them?
Thank you very much to you all for your valuable contributions which will benefit to us all.
Here is the email in question:
Current Environmental Engineering
23 August 2019
Dr. M. Ertz
Universit du Qubec Chicoutimi
Boulevard de l\Universit
Dear Dr. Ertz,
Current Environmental Engineering (CEE), is in the process of appointing Executive Guest Editors. This journal publishes in all areas of environmental sustainability, disaster risk reduction and management, decision and policy making. We would like to propose your name for the position of Executive Guest Editor of Current Environmental Engineering.
Executive Guest Editors are appointed for a period of three years and are expected to submit a proposal for the first thematic issue in a hot and emerging field within 3 months. They are also expected to submit one thematic issue each subsequent year.
The peer review of the articles may be arranged by the guest editor, provided that the list of referees for each article is pre-approved by us. The reviewers should be neutral experts with H-index of above 15. The guest editor would be expected to provide us with at least two referee reports of each article. Publication of thematic issue would be facilitated by the use of our state- of- the- art, article processing system.
The Executive Guest Editors will be entitled to the following benefits:
- A brief CV and photograph of the Executive Guest Editor will be displayed on the journal’s website.
- Executive Guest Editors will be entitled to a waiver of the Open Access fee for any article authored by him/her in their thematic issue (Open Access publishing provides wide accessibility of the article and is normally a paid service. To view some of the Open access articles in the journal, please visit the journal website).
- The Executive Guest Editor will receive a free online access to the journal for the calendar year in which their thematic issue is published.
- The Executive Guest Editor will be given free online access to any 3 books of his/her choice from the Bentham list of E Books.
- The Executive Guest Editor will receive a hard copy of the published thematic issue for personal use.
If this position is of interest to you, please let us know. If you are interested, then kindly send us your brief CV and a list of your recent publications. Kindly also indicate the field of the journal relevant to your area of research.
In case you are not interested in the position of Executive Guest Editor, then you are welcome to submit a general article that fits in to the Aims and Scope of the journal.
We look forward to hearing from you in this regard.
[If you prefer not to receive any further emails, please send us an email with the subject line “UNSUBSCRIBE”]
What do you think about GROWING SCIENCE PUBLISHER .It is a Canadian online publisher of open access academic without any article processing charges (APCs) and with a short time for reviewing.
JCR released impact factor list 2017 for journals. About 66 percent of the journals with an increased Journal Impact Factor and Quarterly journal of economics has Highest Journal Impact Factor Percentile Score This Year i.e. 99.856. PLoS One published about 22,077 articles and ranked 5th for total citations and ranked at 2,498 by Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile
Link of 2017 Journal Citation Reports:
How to get list of journals with new impact factor, specifically journals in social sciences
Does anybody know of any initiatives, other than Publons that gives credit to peer-reviewers, that lobbies for free open access publishing? It would be great if peer-reviewers got publication discounts from open access publishers. Paid open access seems to discriminates against 'poor' universities & researchers who cannot pay out of their own pocket and for those researchers that publish a lot. It does not seem ethical to pay for own publications - the richest will publish the most, especially considering all the predatory journals that would publish any poor quality materials for money, Scholars are doing their peer-reviews for free and publishers get paid for publishing their work...
Are we, as a scoentofoc community, get into a situation where where we compromise against the quality of the reaserch paper when the same is published in a journal by paying for each publication? The journals also might not view very stringently on the quality compared to the journals which are subscription-based.