Well... "fast, efficient" is not a benchmark of journal quality. The fastest and most
efficient journals are those which publish your work without doing any checks at all.
The whole point of academic journals is to expose research to rigorous expert review
by peers in your field. That takes time. It doesn't feel fast or efficient, and
arguably it shouldn't be.
Also, where are these reviews? The location of reviews is often more important than
what the reviews say. Reviews on a company's own website should be met with the most
scepticism, followed closely by reviews on Facebook/Twitter etc. (easy to spoof
social media accounts).
(My lawyer urges me to stress that I am in no way accusing LifeScienceGlobal or
anyone else of doing anything untoward..)
Really though, the only important opinion comes from the people you want to impress.
Are you seeking academic work and want to impress prospective employers? If so then
ask senior academics what they would make of a given journal. Are you looking for
work in a particular professional sector? Similarly, ask experienced people in that
field whether a given journal would impress them.
JUST REMEMBER, once you publish a set of data and/or analysis in one journal, it's
TRAPPED there. In most cases, copyright means you can't take the same work elsewhere.
Even without copyright concerns, prestigious journals simply don't want stuff that's
been published elsewhere. They want exclusivity. That's the biggest reason for
caution here, much more important long-term than just being scammed out of some money
for bogus publishing fees.
Dave
--
Dr. Dave Sayers, ORCID no. 0000-0003-1124-7132
Senior Lecturer, Dept Humanities, Sheffield Hallam University | www.shu.ac.uk
Honorary Research Fellow, Cardiff University & WISERD | www.wiserd.ac.uk
[log in to unmask] | http://shu.academia.edu/DaveSayers
On 23/01/2017 02:46, Fizza Hasan wrote:
> If a publisher/journal appears on this list, does that alone make it suspicious?
>
> The list page recommends reading the reviews and making a decision.
>
> I am looking at the reviews of LifeScienceGlobal and they say things like fast,
> efficient, will publish again. What conclusions should I draw?
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:04 AM, TEACHLING automatic digest system
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> There is 1 message totaling 84 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2017
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:43:44 +0000
> From: Dave Sayers <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Subject: Re: Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2017
>
> As if I cursed it with my email, sadly this excellent resource has just folded -
> apparently under legal pressure: https://goo.gl/1i2HP7.
>
> As the top comment points out, the website has been cached elsewhere and the latest
> version (15 Jan) is available on the Internet Archive, here: https://goo.gl/HannC1.
> Of course it won't be updated though, and with predatory journals being such a
> rapidly growing field, it will be of increasingly limited value, sadly.
>
> As another comment points out, you can approach the question of legitimacy from the
> other direction and see if a journal is recognised in a directory like DOAJ or SCOPUS
> - although as Beall noted on a number of occasions, these have had to remove
> publishers for misconduct, so membership there doesn't guarantee legitimacy.
>
> For what it's worth, my basic advice is that the right journal/conference will not
> come to you; they will wait for you to come to them. Predatory journals seem to have
> in common the trait of soliciting for contributions, usually out of the blue, often
> with vaguely worded obsequious praise for your work. All these things should ring
> loud alarm bells. This advice is easier to impart than Beall's list, and hopefully
> less likely to get me sued. Please pass it on!
>
> Dave
>
> --
> Dr. Dave Sayers, ORCID no. 0000-0003-1124-7132
> Senior Lecturer, Dept Humanities, Sheffield Hallam University | www.shu.ac.uk
> <http://www.shu.ac.uk>
> Honorary Research Fellow, Cardiff University & WISERD | www.wiserd.ac.uk
> <http://www.wiserd.ac.uk>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> |
> http://shu.academia.edu/DaveSayers <http://shu.academia.edu/DaveSayers>
>
>
>
>
> On 03/01/2017 19:08, Dave Sayers wrote:
> > Today (3 Jan) saw the release of the latest edition of this excellent free
> resource,
> > on the website 'Scholarly Open Access', maintained voluntarily by Jeffrey Beall, a
> > librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver: https://goo.gl/qk2o6W.
> >
> > The issue of fraud in academic publishing recently made the mainstream news in
> a New
> > York Times article which has been doing the rounds: https://goo.gl/A1G9jI.
> (Beall is
> > quoted in that article.) The rapid increase in fake or otherwise shady
> publishers is
> > alarming and a cause for heightened wariness, especially rise of 'hijacked'
> > publications as noted on scholarlyoa.com <http://scholarlyoa.com>.
> >
> > I would add that there's some debate out there about Beall's methods - particularly
> > concerns about proficiency in English sometimes being a factor in determining the
> > authenticity of a journal. This can potentially cast doubt on journals in countries
> > with distinct varieties of English, somewhat unfairly. (The varied debate about his
> > methods is captured quite nicely within Beall's Wikipedia entry:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall>.) Amusingly on that note, the NYT
> article
> > linked above ends with a correction about a typo in another article!
> >
> > Anyway, in the main, scholarlyoa.com <http://scholarlyoa.com> is a very useful
> resource to help piece together
> > the authenticity or otherwise of a publisher/publication, and this year's updated
> > List is an essential resource - albeit with the above caveats.
> >
> > And please, as with so many of these things, if you find it useful yourself
> then tell
> > your grad students and junior colleagues! Too many inexperienced folks get duped by
> > obsequious emails from predatory publishers, and they're typically the worst
> affected
> > by the scams, both financially and because usually once you publish with one
> journal
> > you can't publish the same data with another (legitimate) journal.
> >
> > Happy new year all, stay safe out there!
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Dave Sayers, ORCID no. 0000-0003-1124-7132
> > Senior Lecturer, Dept Humanities, Sheffield Hallam University | www.shu.ac.uk
> <http://www.shu.ac.uk>
> > Honorary Research Fellow, Cardiff University & WISERD | www.wiserd.ac.uk
> <http://www.wiserd.ac.uk>
> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> |
> http://shu.academia.edu/DaveSayers <http://shu.academia.edu/DaveSayers>
> >
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TEACHLING Digest - 18 Jan 2017 to 19 Jan 2017 (#2017-13)
> ***************************************************************
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
