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.
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.
%20629394953%20Shutterstock.png){kind=avatar}
