Scientific Publishing - Science topic

SDGs = UN' Sustainable Development Goals

HEI = Higher Education Institutions

If any relation is detected, you should specify which these are and how they work or must be working. You can give any ideas to optimize this processes or actions.

We would like to invite you to publish your next paper in our upcoming issues of DYSONA – Applied Science (ISSN: 2708-6283).

Publication fees: Free of charge

Time from submission to publication: Average 4 weeks (depending on peer review/revision process)

Indexing and abstracting: The journal is not yet included in Scopus or WoS. However, the journal is index in AGRIS (FAO), Google Scholar, FSTA, ROAD, ZDB and many more scientific repositories

Website: https://applied.dysona.org

We welcome your questions here and for more information, kindly contact us at: dysona@e-namtila.com

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I have a question regarding the review process for journal submissions. When we submit an article to a journal, is it illegal for a reviewer to provide authors with a list of their own articles and request that these articles be cited in the manuscript? I understand that this practice is certainly unethical, but I am curious about its legality.

In the situations I am referring to, the articles suggested for citation are entirely unrelated to the manuscript under review. Reviewers often claim that their final decision on the acceptance of a manuscript does not depend on whether the authors cite their articles, stating that these suggestions are optional.

However, I have spoken with several authors in my country who recognize that this practice is unethical. They feel pressured to comply with these requests because their papers have already been under review for several months, and they fear the risk of rejection or further delay if the journal has to find new reviewers to replace the previous ones.

I appreciate your insights on this matter.

The scientific publishing industry is facing several significant challenges today:

Preprint servers play a valuable role in the scientific publishing workflow by accelerating the sharing of research, promoting openness and transparency, and diversifying the publication landscape. As the scientific community continues to evolve, the role of preprint servers will likely continue to be an important and dynamic aspect of the scholarly communication ecosystem.

The choice between open-access and subscription-based publishing models involves weighing the trade-offs between accessibility, sustainability, quality, and the evolving landscape of scholarly communication. Institutions, funders, and researchers must carefully consider their priorities and the broader implications for the scientific publishing ecosystem.

Guys here is partial list of JCR (Web of Science) Impact Factor.

Abstract: The Journal Citation Reports (JCR) Impact Factor is a widely recognized metric used to evaluate the influence and prestige of scientific journals. However, in recent years, there has been a noticeable decline in the impact factors of many journals indexed in the Web of Science’s JCR database. Causes can be

Conclusion: The decline in the impact factors of journals listed in the JCR database can be attributed to a combination of factors related to evolving publication practices, field-specific trends, citational behavior, and editorial practices. Understanding these factors is crucial for researchers, publishers, and other stakeholders to interpret impact factors accurately and make informed decisions regarding journal selection and evaluation.

Further research and analysis are needed to delve deeper into the dynamics of impact factors and explore potential strategies for maintaining the quality and relevance of journals in an evolving scholarly publishing landscape.

The attachment contains List of impact Factors 2024.

Dear Colleagues,

Peer-review isn't working well, and it needs an overhaul. In the time of artificial intelligence, blockchain, and remote work, it doesn't make sense to wait for months just to receive few lines rejecting an excellent manuscript or accepting a poor one!

Would you spend five minutes to answer a questionnaire on Google forms, and help SCIENEUM.io solve this problem for all of us?

This is it: https://forms.gle/2BskfDeAoeqKf5Wt5

Are you one of us? https://youtu.be/ewOuhohAjWc

Write your comment below!

Dear all,

I would like to share with you publishing opportunities in our journal, Ecosystem Services, a Q1 journal, with an impact factor 2023 of 7.6, according to the 2023 Journal Citations Report and 12.5 CitiScore (SCOPUS). We have currently 3 Special Issues (SI) open for submissions:

The scope and full information can be found here:

Regards

Luis

Recently I visited <https://research.com/> (R) (a platform that lists top scientists around the world from the areas of computer science and electronics) and later I also visited <https://atlas.cern/> (A) (the ATLAS Experiment at CERN). I made the following observations (I intentionally don't mention names):

1. One of the top authors at R has published 1,816 papers.

If one's professional career lasts 40 years, the calculation says:

40 years X 365 days = 14600 days; 14600 / 1816 = 8 days to publish a paper

That means 1 paper is published every 8 days during the entire professional life! That's about 45 papers a year... every year!

2. The same author at R has an h-index of 167.

"The h-index is defined as the maximum value of h such that the given author/journal has published at least h papers that have each been cited at least h times."

The R's top author has 167 papers each one cited 167 times!

3. A paper published by A's researchers had 78 authors!

I realize that CERN is something "big" and quite complex. But... there are 78 authors anyway...

Probably all those people are high-level scientists. But... what makes them hyperprolific? Is it real? How is it possible? Is it more for the benefit of science or is it a kind of business?

What's your opinion?

Is it a good idea to send pre-submission inquiries to multiple journals to accelerate the publication process? or do we have to wait for the editors' response to a pre-sub before sending another one?

Thank you!

Greetings fellow researchers,

We have researched the Frankl theory, which suggests that subscribing to nihilism can lead to experiencing existential vacuum (Man's Search for Meaning, p.111). Furthermore, we have studied how this phenomenon poses a threat to psychotherapy (). We have investigated how internet usage and existential nihilism affect the experience of existential vacuum.

As we have decided to take this research further for publication, I would like to gather your insights on selecting appropriate journals, approaching them, how the university affiliation can help, the ethical process, and whether we can take assistance from a guide or the university. We appreciate any additional insights or experiences you may have on the topic.

Thank you!

Remark_1: a PDF of this draft has been added to this discussion to allow the readers to have access to the hyperlinks.

Remark_2: this discussion is aimed at drawing attention to the seriousness of the current man-made global warming in which science has much to do in order to avoid the uncertainty spreading.

Last November 17 and 18 a very concerning fact took place for the first time in modern recorded history. The global surface air temperature exceeded in 2-degree Celsius the pre-industrial average temperature taken between 1850-1900 prior to extensive and widespread use of fossil fuels. Despite scientists assure that the observed exceeding, that happened for a limited number of days, does not mean that the Paris Agreement targets are already compromised, it is urgent and mandatory to keep a precautionary tracking of the atmosphere to dilucidated if a threshold is gaining momentum pushing the atmosphere to start working around the 2-degree Celsius atmospheric overheating, and becoming the main feature of the anthropogenic climate warming within the next ten years.

What happened last November 17 is a serious issue that cannot be overlooked nor discarded by the irresponsible "optimism" which tells things will get better because of technology-based fairy-tales, and by the institutional denialism that exist around the seriousness of the human-sparked global warming and all that has to do with its speed (or if you prefer, its rate of advancement). For those reasons, a conservative perspective will not be helpful keeping in mind the last twenty years trends in CO2 global emissions.

As expected, COP 28 was unable to leave behind its 1.5-degree Celsius goal as nothing serious is taking place with regards how fast the human-boosted warming is going to exceed the 2-degree Celsius above pre-industrial average.

Almost in parallel, the tipping points narrative has been warning humans cannot exceed the 1.5-degree Celsius, despite it is being also said that humans are "near climate tipping points". The bad news is humans still have not developed the hard models and measurements to obtain an accurate metrics of who far humans are to reach that tipping points. Furthermore, the "tipping points" discourse is too vague, and it is becoming another meaningless concept that too many in the world talk about, without having yet available any measurable parameters nor a quantifiable perception of those potential thresholds.

For decades it has been told that remote sensing and all that comes from Earth Observation (EO) systems would help to achieve a sustainable path while planning for a sustainable development (SD), and for a tough future under severe climate strikes. Tonnes of papers using satellite-provided data have been published and, no doubt of it, will keep a high rate of publishing being, so far, unable to show evidence of an overall improvement of the global situation as human dynamics seems unstoppable.

Despite the lack of a decisive global and integrative climate action will persist as one of the main features and drivers of the international system in the near term, to start thinking about implementing a global coverage alert system to inform globally when and how often the global mean Earth temperature gets closer or exceeds the 2-degree Celsius above pre-industrial average. That alert system should also have a straightforward design to display the information to obtain trends (the speed of atmospheric overheating is crucial) and frequency of that events.

That alert system should be very "sonorous". It does mean it should, among other means and devices, reach the cell phones of the people in a similar way as, for instance, earthquakes alarm systems work. In few words, each time the global mean temperature gets closer and/or exceeds the 2-degree Celsius above pre-industrial average people must know.

To make concrete progresses concerning the sense of urgency and the situational awareness among global citizens, to end with the self-deceiving attitude that can be witnessed not only in rich but middle income and poor countries too. The warming is being faster than predicted and expected. Humans lost this war twenty years ago when it was, finally, accepted that the warming was faster the previously accepted. Unfortunately, despite the huge amount of data, and the quantity of satellites orbiting Earth, it is rather an impossible task yet to provide any measure of that speed and nor agree on how humans should measure that rate of change.

It is time to end the over discussing time and get serious. It is quite advisable to carry out a sustained observing effort on what is going on in Brazil and in the middle of the Amazonia, while following the situation over there all along the summer 2023 in the Southern Hemisphere. It is important to be able to know how many times it could happen during the next six months.

It is also advisable that science make its best effort in avoiding publishing papers that provide grounds for time ambiguity. It should be a mandatory attitude to be quite clear in validating the scope and conclusions of any paper in concrete time-frames. To leave the door open for speculation regarding the timing that can be inferred from those publications exerts a very negative impact in all that pertain to figure out the right time scales for climate action globally speaking.

An explicit acknowledgment of what version, the weak or the strong, of the sustainable development (SD) concept is being framed as the main analytical tool is a complementary publishing strategy that could be of great assistance when evaluating the reach and strength of the conclusions. It is worth mentioning that the “weak” version has been adopted for so long and can be the explanatory root for the aggregate failure of both, to accomplish higher levels of sustainability and give shape to the urgent human collective self-restrain to ameliorate the response to the climate and ecological crisis.

Science is not free of being submitted to any governance regime which should be vigilant of the undesired and counterproductive effects of scientific papers on the political process that, regrettably, took the control of all that concerns to the climate discussion, and the institutions designed to institutionalize a, supposedly thought, collective action.

The bottom line is nineteen years have been lost. In December 2015 it was projected the world would reach the 1.5-degree Celsius by March 2045. Reassessed estimations are suggesting the world risk breaching that benchmark by February 2034.

Remark_3: as always I am willing to build network capabilities aimed at publishing papers with policy-implications, participate in workshop, and/or find the paths for setting the structure of a good well-funded research project.

Dear colleagues,

As you know 15.11.2023 ResearchGate announced its partnership with MDPI (https://www.researchgate.net/press-newsroom/researchgate-and-mdpi-partner-to-boost-the-visibility-of-open-access-journals-through-journal-home). MDPI is known by its very questionable practices (there are many discussions about MDPI here, on RG +there is a good analysis by Paolo Crosetto https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher/ and also a fresh preprint about general problems with scientific publishing involving this publisher https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.15884.pdf) and at least in my opinion, it should not be promoted publicly.

Such a partnership poses a danger to Good Scientific Practices (GSP) and legitimizes questionable approaches especially those related to scientific publishing, and peer review. Besides all, there is also an ethical issue that should not be ignored.

At the same time, RG was a relatively good platform for exchanging and discussing research. It was helpful for me for networking and other science-related activities. And it seems that there is no good alternative to it at the moment.

That is why I would like to know whether you plan to stay there, leave this platform, or take any other actions.

Thank you.

As a regular user of ResearchGate, I'm disappointed by their decision to favor MDPI journals over numerous society journals (https://twitter.com/ResearchGate/status/1724759715358351423). Like many others, I'm considering deleting my account unless this unwise decision is reconsidered. What are your thoughts on this matter?

I got an invite to join SciPinion and I can't tell if it is a predatory journal or not. Anybody have experience with them?

The email opened with this: "Your peers have identified you as an expert in your field and you have been invited to join our highly respected scientific community. Please claim your account!" and then went and ended with: "We believe your inclusion in our community strengthens our mission and our collective goal as scientists to find the truth, we would very much appreciate your insights. Your participation in any of this may remain completely anonymous at your discretion."

My manuscript was accepted in an Elsevier journal on Sep. 26, 2018. The corrected proof is available online since Oct. 5, 2018 but I haven't received the final version yet. At the same time, I see more recent publications that are available as final versions. What could be the reasons?

Please advise resources where you can search for dissertations using keywords. We need sites where you can choose the type of scientific work (article, dissertation, etc.). Thank you!

I have a confusion in the results of some sanger sequence reactions for IBDV viruses.

the sequence reactions fail to give any reads or give non specific, bad quality and short fragments, although the PCR of those reactions are strongly positive and the sequenced samples was positive for both classic and vvIBDV by real time PCR.

could this failure be related to the mixed infection in samples or quasispecies phenomena?

I am in bad need to find out the scientific causes of these results supported with scientific published papers.

thanks for help

Dear researchers

I get invitation from Universe Scientific Publishing Pte. Ltd. I check the website there is no indexed and the journal is still in early stage of creation. I check the publisher on net whether predatory or not however there is no information. Do you have any suggestion?

Thank you

Teguh

What is a helpful tactic for evaluating the quality of your academic writing from the perspective of the reader? and what are the main elements to be assessed while proofreading your final draft?

Exciting news for researchers and academics! Leading academic publishers like #Elsevier and #Cambridge University Press have announced that researchers can use applications like #𝗖𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗚𝗣𝗧 for academic writing, provided that the work is original. This means that texts created using tools like #𝗖𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗚𝗣𝗧 and Bing can be used to accelerate the process of scientific and academic publishing, but cannot be included as authors or contributors in the publication. This is an important step forward in reconciling the role of global publishing and research with modern technological advancements. Learn more about this implicit statement on the publishers' official website in the editorial policies and scientific publishing page.

Link: https://lnkd.in/dXnctutf

Hello,

I am a long-time user of R, but I basically always do the same thing… Generate an « ugly » table of descriptive statistics with summaryBy and doing ANOVA, post-hoc tests, etc.

I recently discover R Markdown and got really existed with its great potential to create nice statistical reports and more.

I have attached a screenshot of a simplified kind of raw data I usually produce in my research and the type of table I eventually publish.

I search the web for R code to produce the second table on my screenshot, but I did not find exactly what I was looking for.

Does someone is the Research Gate could help me?

Thanks in advance!

With the volatility of the scientific publishing world these days, what should a PhD graduate do when he/she discovers that his/her hard earned and meticulous scientific findings that was published in a journal for which he was awarded his doctorate and possibly awarded a grant for, and was included in CVs that landed him/her a job suddenly disappears overnight alongside the publishing company could not being found?

Research trends are in many cases impacted by the gate-keeper's attitude or approval of a prospective research paper. The majority of those gate-keepers are specialized chief editors, editors, and reviewing-scholars in their fields.

Is it justified that a research paper gets rejected based on the criteria of being/not being fashionable or popular in the field?

Would you go with the current in order to get pass, or would you rather be concerned with saying your word in the field? Supposing that there are evidences for both the popular and the "not fashionable attitude nowadays".

I'm in the humanities, researching American poetry.

Thanks for your comments!

Hello,

Aside from Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers, are there other lists of the same content? For example, World Scientific Publishing Company is not on the list of Beall, but how to know if this publisher is predatory?

Thanks.

In many of these serious journals authors should pay for publishing (more than in pirate journals) and process of acceptance is unreasonably too long and too formalistic. I found a lot of very good papers (high quality and scientific) published in pirate journals. In some of serious journals engineering approach and practical use are neglected. The most important criterion for the paper acceptance is using of any new statistical method and/or model (in recent time especially machine learning). Remember Klemeš and his papers: Dilettantism in hydrology: Transition or destiny?; Political pressures in water resources management – do they influence predictions? etc.

With the advances in community review and Web3 on the horizon, I've been starting to wonder if the way in which traditional peer-review works is outdated. Have y'all found any systems out there that feel like the future of peer-review?

Many Academician and researchers think that number, quality and citation does not matter. But another school of thought relates quality of a paper to number of citation. What can be some successful strategies to increase the number of citations?

The Dolos list has started to work well, but I do not think this opposition to predatory publishing is enough. From what I have seen, there is no collective or institute (consisting of researchers) of reference that denounces this sector. It could be a collective whose objective would be to establish regular reports and publish statements about this sector. The collective aspect would give more weight to this opposition. For the moment, I have the impression that these are mostly isolated actions from researchers. What do you think about this idea ?

I just have to warn you of one thing: A researcher who publicly opposes this sector would have to assume unpleasant consequences. For my part, a few days after launching the Dolos list, I was already receiving threatening messages.

Best regards,

Alexandre.

World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd is a Singapore-based publishing company that has been in the business since 1981. They publish a lot of edited books each year. How well accepted are those books in academia? Are they peer-reviewed?

We've all been in circumstances when we couldn't find the literature we were looking for. Other times, we found exactly what we wanted, but very late. Thus, beginners in research are pushed to formulate a clear and innovative title. Keywords rescue us, but, is it enough?

In these days of data mining, what tools can we utilize to structure our research paper titles such that they are search engine optimized (SEO)? How can we write technical titles that are both engaging and readable?

1. Google Trends

Track changes in word usage over time, within a region, etc.

2. Web-of-Science

Regular keyword literature search, to find jargon usage.

3. Semrush

Helps with Keyword Research, Competitive Research, PR, etc. It is a marketing tool, perhaps used by industrial researchers and product developers?

4. What am I missing? What are your tricks and tips?

Thank you!

I have personally experience that its relatively tough to publish in a good journal in social science, for example let us suppose in the field of finance, marketing and so on. In comparison i have seen that in natural sciences the publication chances and frequency are higher. What are the possible reasons for this? 

I have been asked to submit a paper on a special issue of Genes- MDPI. The impact factor of the journal is showing to be 3.4 but I saw conflicting articles about the MDPI journals being a predatory one. Though the editor of the issue is a reputed person in the field, I am bit confused about the journal in general. What are your thoughts?

I recently read a recent publication, that was well done experimentally, results and discussion were excellent, but the abstract contained facts, that were not results of this study, they contrasted the results of the study. It was possible to make a list and put sentences in the abstract against the corrsponding part of the main part and the discussion and to see to difference. The main author did not answer to my question about it.

How is this possible ? Can Abstracts be changed after the review process und go to print without a check ? Or do you think, something like this may have been overseen by referees.

In Germany it is possible to send such findings to a DFG commision.

Dear community,

this seems to have been out there since 2018 in medical sciences, but I only stumbled over it recently:

T&F are offering extremely fast review and publication times for a higher fee, they pay reviewers for handing in reviews in time. How do you feel about this? Will this bias acceptance of papers and just be a new way to buy a publication? Or do you think this is the right incentive for reviewers and a way to recognize the importance of fast and constructive review?

I would be interested in your opinion.

Differentiating Science from Pseudoscience is becoming a challenge at so many levels these days. How can we separate the two and acknowledge a grey area in between?

Hi everyone,

I am about to define an experiment where we want to investigate 10 - 20 de novo small proteins. We are mainly interested in affinity but also want to show that proteins are folding properly. For that we are thinking about using circular dichroism. I am having seconds thoughts though if this is the right method in the long run. When it comes to publishing, I have the gut feeling that reviewers might ask for a crystal structure of the protein or even the complex. I am working on getting an impression myself by reading nature and science papers but I would like to get to know your advice and experience concerning the matter. What methods are best suited to give our research credibility that might be expected in high impact journals?

cheers

Martin

Does anyone have experience with Columbus Publishers?

trustworthy or predatory journals?

As a researcher, I suffer a lot from the dilemma of global research cooperation, and since I am mainly from a poor African country, and I have no research support and I rely in my research on the laboratory capabilities available in the workplace, I face great difficulties in front of scientific publishing, in which I waste a lot of time and effort..

While research cooperation spawns scientific papers and innovations like the village of ants and at frequent intervals because each member of the group has a small and specific task!

So far I have failed to find a serious research group that suits me and would like to share with me, what are the possible reasons??

Hi all,

I have submitted a paper for publication in June 2017 and I am wondering how long people generally wait? I submitted to a relatively small journal, Impact Factor ~ 1, and waited over 8 months for my first response from them (while their home page says it is generally 185 days ~ 6 months). I emailed them a couple of times during the process for a check, but they just said there is nothing they could do and they are waiting for the reviewer. I worked on the revisions promptly and returned them after a week. I was then told again that I would have to wait (this time about 2-3 weeks for a second revision). I got it back (2 months later) and it was conditionally accepted with more revisions requested. Again I worked on it promptly and re-submitted. Now it has been almost 3 months again. Prior they told me that revisions in this stage only take 2-3 weeks (and last time they had to switch out a reviewer because they took so long, after my requests). Now I am not sure what to do, it feels like their deadlines keep getting pushed back, and they say there's nothing they can do and there has not been an update since the day after I submitted it. Should I request new reviewers or is that just the way it is? It has been over 16 months since I originally submitted the article.

I have heard as good as bad commentaries about this scientific publisher. In my case, I feel that the generalized perception is that this publisher is predatory. Can anyone tell me any experience (good or bad) with this publisher?. Your comments can help me to decide if I publish with this group.

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)

Colleagues,

do you know some UAV-dedicated Special Issues that are open for submission now? Both Magazines and Journals SIs will be highly appreciated! No discrimination on the publishers (IEEE, Frontiers, MDPI, Elsevier, River....)!

Thank you :)

PS: I think following this discussion will be useful. both to find Special Issues and/or to advertise them

Despite certain disadvantages, peer-review is generally accepted as a quality control of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals. The higher the rank of the journal, the more often manuscripts are rejected by the Editor for various reasons (lack of novelty, routine work, low technical quality etc.). Getting you manuscript back with staggering reviewer comments is a rather frustrating experience. What are your personal tips and tricks to avoid rejection?

Delhi, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala Ophthalmological societies have their own journals which are unfortunately not indexed in pubmed? What's your take on publishing works in these journals as first choice?

Recently, one of my papers has been published after five year of its final acceptance by a SCI index journal, that to after lot of reminders. Can anybody suggest about fixing the upper time-limit for the publication of manuscripts at least in peer reviewed Journals?

What is the future of scientific publishing in light of the trend of most journals to open access? And will this affect the quality of the scientific publication, as the view is still that the open-access is of lower quality and prestigious than the non-open one?

I received an unsolicited email from Scientia Global and I can't tell if they are a predatory publisher of scientific journal articles or news articles or if they are legit.

"Dear Dr. April Robin Martinig, I hope you do not mind me emailing you directly, I thought it would be the easiest way to make first contact. If you have time for a short discussion I was hoping to speak with you about your research and our interest to feature your work in an upcoming issue of our science communication publication, Scientia. I will run you through this in more detail when we talk. But to give you a very quick insight into Scientia and the style in which we publish, I have attached a few example articles from research groups we have recently worked with. I have attached these as HTML files to reduce the size, but I can send PDF versions if you would prefer. You may also view one of our recent full publications here: https://www.scientia.global/scientia-issue-132/ Please let me know if you might have 10 minutes for a short phone call and advise when would be a good time and day for you to discuss further? I look forward to talking soon. Kind regards, Paris Allen"

Dear RG colleagues,

Let us discuss on what basis are the authors sequence in multi-authored publications is arranged? Does it depend only on the contribution’s weight of each author? How to estimate the contribution’s weight of each author? Are there other criteria to determine this arrangement? Thank you very much for sharing your opinions with us,

Kind regards

Although the costs of scientific publishing are on a continuous decline, especially with the development of electronic publishing, the APC for publishing in scientific journals are constantly increasing. Why do major publishing houses try to exploit researchers to this degree. How should the scientific community respond and what measures should be taken against them?

As all of us are familiar with the different journal ranking systems and requirement conditions, in many cases we meet different kind of fees, charges for publishing our researches. Usually only the submitting and the previewing cost US$ 50-250, which is non-refundable and the paper may be rejected by the editors without being sent for review. Others introduce fees for the publishing US$ 500 -1000 (extra fees for colour graphs, maps etc. or for appeals against a Chief Editor's decision). For good English, they offer some links for the grammar review: US$ 100-200. Besides all of this, they employ embargo for 12-36 months, and ask US$ 600-2500 for open access. I think these fees sometimes unreasonable, so it is hard not to find the business factor behind them.

What are some of the difficulties or disadvantages, if any, of publishing in high impact journals?

Thanks in advance for your participation!

How to distinguish between a predatory journal and genuine journal in publish our research work??? Every now and then we get emails for the publisher to submit our work to their journals......

Dear Colleagues, I hope someone can provide some answer :

I recently had notified by Research Gate that ELSEVIER editorial did notified them that they needed to take one Scientific Article I had on my Research Items down, due to violation of ELSEVIER's Copyright.

This article was published on the Journal "Nano Energy", of ELSEVIER's, and I appear as the first autor.

Is there a way to keep one of this articles on your RG Items without infringing the Copyrights of ELSEVIER ?

Can I try to upload it again? This time under the "Private" mode (not open sharing, but via request)

Or it's better to leave the matter alone? Meaning that all ELSEVIER's editorial articles cannot be shared freely on Research Gate ?

Thank You! Best Regards !

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?

I need a co-author for a scopus article to participate in ІСSF 2021, Innovative Approaches for Solving Environmental Issues Workshop (IASEI-WS'2021), Kyiv. The article has already been written and is ready for publication. I am the main athor of this article. It is is an overview article about means of remote monitoring of air quality, and the possibility of their use for operational monitoring in Ukraine. I place a discreet emphasis on using the UAV.

link to the conference website: https://icsf.ccjournals.eu/2021/index2.html

Requirements for a co-author: student, PhD student, or any other researcher who works in a scientific institution at a given time. The institution should not be located in Ukraine or in the Russian Federation (such co-authors already exist).

If you are interested, please contact me as soon as possible.

Deadline of this offer - 28.12.2020

Anastasiia Turevych,

e-mail: ognetyr@gmail.com

Thank you!

We in the scientific community often hear about and are aware of some unworthy individuals copying and reproducing results (without due recognition of authors right). How shall we create responsibility and make aware of those who may do such unlawful acts presumably without knowing?

The peer review system has been the cornerstone of scientific publishing for centuries.

I am looking for research papers copied (in full or in part) by other papers to identify a "percentage of plagiarism". Authors can be different. Can you help me find any papers?

plagiarism free check

I just found Viper but I'm having some problems with it. Is there any other plagiarism software online?

Hi,

I'm working with a set of soil analyses obtained from an external laboratory.

Studying the results, I am highly confident that one of the analyses gave incorrect results because the values are extremely unlikely (in total disagreement with what is normally naturally occurring).

Besides, I have conducted additional analyses to triple-check this analysis.

The results I have obtained contradict, as I expected, the anomalous data.

The problem is, that the method I used is not the same as the initial method (unavailable at my lab), but is supposed to measure the same variable.

Now that it is time to write a research article, what would you do to overcome this problem?

Should I explain that for this particular analysis, results were abnormal and were not considered further?

Should it be done early in the results section, or later in the discussion section?

How have you dealt with unexpected/erroneous data with your research, when you cannot repeat the same analysis?

Will a journal accept to publish results which include one bad apple, while the rest of the basket is fine?

I know it gives another chance to resubmit after major revision. But could corresponding author consider "Reject & Resubmit" as a simple reject, and submit the article to another journal? Should corresponding author ask for permission of previous journal?

In some journal papers, I am included in the acknowledgement section. Reason for this is, I have helped them in taking some measurements. How should we mention such contributions in the CV?

Or, put another way, all the new journals that are created are really necessary?

Here you are our contribution to the debate:

Urbano, C.; Rodrigues, R.S.; Somoza-Fernández, M.; Rodríguez-Gairín, JM. (2020). “Why are new journals created?". Profesional de la Informacion (2020) 29(4) 1-19.

Are you a publisher or an editor who has recently participated in the launch of a new journal ... What is your opinion?

Frontiers in Psychology has a decent Impact Factor and is one of the highly cited journals in the field, but the journal is not listed in the ABS journal quality guidelines. I was wondering if it's a good idea for someone working in a business school to consider the journal as a potential outlet for organizational psychology related topics.