December 1, 2013

Musings on mock conferences and predatory journals - Copy Shake and Paste

Jeffrey Beall published the "evaluation form" from a scientist who was lured to one of the many OMICS mock conferences. He describes pretty much all of the behavior that is found at such conferences: no involvement of the people on the committees, shortening the conference, massive no-shows, lots of pictures and awards and a fancy web site. It took a lot of effort on his part to get his name removed from their web site, the entire page has now been pulled. Perhaps scientists should quit attending large conferences at hotels, instead sticking to smaller, focused conferences held at universities?

OMICS also publish a wide range of "open access" journals that are on the predatory publishing list. I wonder how many of the "editors-in-chief" actually know that they are editors here?

One of the commenters noted that there is now a CWTS Journal indicator that calculates an impact factor that is normalized according to the field for journals in the SCOPUS database. I looked up a few journals, they seem to have only English-language journals listed. Even just looking at my field, I see so very many journals, how on earth are people able to read all of them? It might be good to check out the journals you are planning on submitting to before you dash off that manuscript.

Random Posts


  • Editorial Announcement: Withdrawal of Chin. Phys. Lett. 24 (2007) 355

    CHIN.PHYS.LETT.Vol. 25, No. 8 (2008) 3094This paper was submitted on 13 October 2006 and appeared in the February issue of 2007 in Chinese Physics Letters. Later it appeared also as arXiv: grqc/0704.0525 in April 2007.As noted recently by the arXiv administrator, this paper plagiarized an earlier ar... READ MORE>>

  • Editorial Announcement: Withdrawal of Chin. Phys. Lett. 24 (2007) 1821

    CHIN.PHYS.LETT.Vol. 25, No. 8 (2008) 3094This paper was submitted on 1 February 2007 and appeared in the July issue of 2007 in Chinese Physics Letters. Later it appeared also as arXiv:grqc/ 0707.1776 in July 2007.As noted recently by the arXiv administrator, this paper plagiarized an earlier arXiv p... READ MORE>>

  • Detecting Scientific Fraud : The Chronicle Review

    Dan Greenberg Fraud, fakery, or larceny is what ordinary people would call it. But in the sciences’ refined venues the proper term is “misconduct,” and there’s a lot more of it than official figures show, according to a report in Nature (19 June), “Repairing research integrity." >>> READ MORE>>

  • Allow me to rephrase, and boost my tally of articles: THE

    Rebecca AttwoodScholars are passing off old work as new to drive up publications counts. Pressure to publish is pushing many academics to plagiarise large volumes of their own work by "dressing up" their old research to appear as if it were new, a study has found.Researchers using text-matching s... READ MORE>>

  • Publish or perish, but at what cost?

    J Clin Invest. 2008 July 1; 118(7): 2368. doi: 10.1172/JCI36371. Ushma S. Neill, Executive EditorThe academic scientific enterprise rewards those with the longest CVs and the most publications. Under pressure to generate voluminous output, scientists often fall prey to double publishing, self plagi... READ MORE>>

  • Repairing research integrity : COMMENTARY: NATURE

    A survey suggests that many research misconduct incidents in the United States go unreported to the Office of Research Integrity. Sandra L. Titus, James A. Wells and Lawrence J. Rhoades say it’s time to change that.>>> READ MORE>>

  • Scientific misconduct: Tip of the iceberg?

    Editor's Summary A survey of US researchers suggests that scientific misconduct is greatly under-reported. The Office of Research Integrity was told of only 201 instances of likely misconduct relating to work funded by the Department of Health and Human Services in three years. Yet extrapolation fr... READ MORE>>

.

.
.

Popular Posts