22 Responses to Serbian Journal Accepts Paper in 24 Hours with No Peer Review, Demands EUR 1785

  1. Chris Cole says:

    Instant gratification at a semi affordable price but good scholarship it is not.

    • Aliah says:

      Thank you very much for your tremendouse help to the authors! And do you know any information about Life Science Journal (ISSN: 1097-8135 (Print) / ISSN: 2372-613X (Online); Impact Factor 2012: 0.165) http://www.lifesciencesite.com/? It is also chargeble, and I do not want to have the same situation as with Pencee Journal…Thank you in advance!

      • This is NOT a predatory journal. I think it is a fine journal. It does not meet the criteria for being classed as a predatory journal.

      • Farid says:


        Life Science Journal is in black list of ministry of higher education of many countries. It is a clear case of predatory pay-me-publish paper.

        Mr Beall should proud of NOT having this journal in his list and having MPDI, instead!


  2. Ahmad Zaki says:

    Sorry. Where is the evidence to show there was no peer review process? I know the acceptance for a manuscript from reputable journals can be less than three days. It may be the case that the journal editors have relevant expertise in the field and can review very fast.

    For the publication charge, it is expensive though.

  3. Dear Mr. Beall,
    As you said that Life Science Journal is OK, I was interested in the journal and downloaded the instruction to authors (I click Introduction). The publication cost is 640 USD (rather expensive, I think), and at the last page bottom, there is a website address: http://www.sciencepub.net, I was curious, as in your list (Jan 2014):

    Science Publications
    Science Publishing Group
    Science Publishing Corporation

    is labelled a predatory, so I enter the website, and found that the publisher is: Marsland Press, and it is in your list of predatory publisher of Jan 2014.

    So, do you still think that “Life Science Journal” is fine?

    • No, I made a mistake and confused this journal with another one.
      I am sorry for this mistake.
      Thank you very much for your helpful correction.

      • Aliah says:

        So as I’ve understood the Life Science Journal isn’t so good and considered to be predatory, but is it still cited in Scopus or Thomson then? I’m confused…

  4. RMS says:

    The two journals discussed in the thread have JCR impact factors, but a key indicator that something is fishy with these journals is their self-citation values (“self cites to years used in impact factor calculation”): 60% for Life Sci. J., and 44% for Arch. Biol. Sci.

  5. Reblogged this on Doctoral education to go!! and commented:
    I offer this to my readers with no further explanation necessary about the need to be careful about where you seek to publish your research.

  6. Rauf, K. (Ph.D.) says:

    Sir, What is the status of Pensee Journal, France

  7. Enrico Marsili says:

    Just for clarity. I agree that urgent publishing fee does not make sense. However, there are 1-2 case/year in my editor work (open access, VERY reputable hournal) when I got a manuscript from the publisher, send to the reviewer and get their response in less than 24 hours. Unfortunately (for the authors), such a rapid response is usually REJECT, for plagiarism or complete lack of novelty. I have never seen a paper accepted in less than 2-3 weeks (on Communication journals).

  8. […] je „Arhiv bioloških nauka“, stručni časopis koji izdaje Srpsko biološko društvo, razotkriven kao predatorski naučni časopis – objavljuje radove bez stručne provere drugih naučnika, uz finansijku […]

  9. […] u tom slučaju praktično svi mediji pratili nove događaje. Konačno, pojavljuju se upravo danas vesti i o degutantnom slučaju našeg državnog časopisa za brzometne naučne radove, sa […]

  10. […] the case of a University of Belgrade professor, editor-in-chief of a reputable scholarly journal, charging for speeding up the publication […]

  11. […] [1] Setimo se afere „Indeks“ na Univerzitetu u Kragujevcu ili, nešto svežiji slučaj profesora Univerziteta u Beogradu, urednika uglednog naučnog časopisa koji je naplaćivao objavljivanje radova po ubrzanoj “proceduri”. […]

  12. […] investigation follows a revelation by Scholarly Open Access blog that the journal, Archives of Biological Sciences, accepted a paper in 24 hours with no peer review […]

  13. […] Scholarly open access: Serbian Journal Accepts Paper in 24 Hours with No Peer Review, Demands EUR 17… (12.6.2014) […]

  14. […] Society, co-published by ten organisations in Serbia and Bosnia. It was accused (on June 12) on the Scholarly Open Access blog of accepting a paper in 24 hours with no peer review, and demanding 1785 euros for publishing […]

  15. […] co-published by ten organisations in Serbia and Bosnia. It was accused (on June 12) on the Scholarly Open Access blog of accepting a paper in 24 hours with no peer review, and demanding 1785 euros for publishing […]

  16. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva says:

    Update with verbatim e-mails (unedited, except for e-mail addresses, whihc have been deleted).

    On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 5:20 PM:

    “Dear Dr. Goran Poznanović,
    Editor-in-Chief, ABS

    NOTE: to all those contacted, any communication held before November 29, 2014 between me and ABS may be requested. I consider this to be a matter of public importance, and thus for maximum transparency, all documents that are available, can be provided.

    Thank you for that rapid rejection of the paper, within 24 hours. Even more so, after the expert opinion of three peers. I would be curious to know who those peers were that are expert in tissue culture of the Cycadaceae. I certainly could not find any experts on your editor board. Perhaps you would be so kind, while the information is still fresh in your mind, of indicating who the three experts were. My colleagues and I are quite happy to receive a valid and professional rejection, but we would like the proof. And, in such a case, the proof lies in the critique offered by the peer reviewers.

    You are right about the manuscript category. I did notice even short papers that are traditionally considered to be short communications are lumped together with large papers at ABS, e.g., Vol 66(4), page 1641. I should note that our manuscript was perfectly formatted to ABS, so in essence you have wasted our precious time with unscholarly and pedantic requests.

    I consider this, however, to be a very positive development since a rejection based on peer review within 24 hours is always better than an acceptance with an extortionary fee of 1785 EUR within the same time period.

    Or perhaps, as I am beginning to think, you may suddenly have recalled that it was I, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, the person who formally complained about ABS in June 2014, and caused the entire editor board to resign, that sparked the 24-hour rejection. After all, the incident has been recorded for history to judge:

    Considering that in fact, peer review at ABS is not blind or even double-blind would it be fair to say that my assumption is correct, or at least highly plausible, and that in fact, it is impossible to get a fair peer review at ABS, even if I wanted to, and even if the research was worthwhile, simply because there is now a permanent, engrained conflict of interest?

    Incidentally, we are almost 6 months after the “incident” with Prof. Božidar Ćurčić, the former EIC, yet, despite the serious claims of massive plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and gaming of the impact factor, I still notice that not a single erratum, expression of concern, or retraction (* except for a publisher-induced gaffe) appears for a single paper between 2010 and 2014 (http://archonline.bio.bg.ac.rs/). Isn’t that odd? How much time will you need to correct the academic fraud that has been published in your journal, Dr. Poznanović?

    * Actually, a retraction was incorrectly published as an erratum in Arch. Biol. Sci., Belgrade, 66 (4), 1689-1689, 2014:
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1404689U
    Erratum to: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF COI GENE OF IXODES RICINUS (LINNAEUS, 1758) FROM SERBIA; Sanja Ćakić, Miljana Mojsilović, D. Mihaljica, Marija Milutinović, A. Petrović and Snežana Tomanović
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1403243C
    published in the ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, BELGRADE Vol. 66, No. 3, 2014 due to a printing error.
    The same paper has already been published in the ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, BELGRADE Vol. 66, No. 2, 2014 (DOI:10.2298/ABS1402683C).

    You have failed abysmally in keeping your promise, made on July 30, 2014, at 5:55 PM.

    And when will Thomson Reuters stop rewarding fraudulent and non-academic pseudo-scholarly journals like Archives of Biological Science that conduct fake-review rather than peer review, and that seem to enjoy maintaining corrupted literature that is filled with self-plagiarism and plagiarism? Does this say more about Serbia, about Abs, or about Thomson Reuters? Incidentally: JCR IF 2013 = 0.607 Not bad considering that there is a strong likelihood that no, weak, or fake peer review may have or continue to be taking place in your journal.

    Why does DOAJ continue to list your journal?

    Of course it is highly likely that neither you nor your band of pseudo-academics that have been put in place to defend the image of Serbia, will respond, and once again, I am forced to post my claims and concerns publically.

    May I advise, as a mere bleb of the plant science community, that you and your journal get your act together. Because unless you shape up this pseudo peer review, and unless you retract every single paper that was published in ABS that was accepted automatically without peer review, or that is filled with self-plagiarism or plagiarism, you will continue to inflict damage on the good name of Serbian scientists and on the image of your country, by being passive, and without demonstrating transparency.

    This is actually quite important because your current, “improved and updated” Instructions for authors states clearly:
    http://archonline.bio.bg.ac.rs/uputstvo.pdf (page 1)
    “Articles are subjected to a three-tier pass-process: articles that meet the basic format and manuscript organization requirements will be subjected to plagiarism screening to identify misused text. Only articles that pass these two steps will be forwarded for peer review to independent referees from the area of research of the submitted manuscript. The authors can also suggest the names of three referees with email addresses, briefly explaining why they think the suggested scientists would be good referees.”

    That suggests that you are employing contradictory and false double-standards, one for yourselves, and one fake one for your authorship.

    I look forward to submitting a manuscript in 2015. I will allow a few months to pass before I submit to allow for deeper reflection and a true reform to take place.

    I am confident that you will understand the importance of dealing with this issue immediately.


    Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

    On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 5:55 PM, Dusko Blagojevic wrote:

    Dear de Silva,
    thank You for suggestions and comments. We will inform of each step that is taken to address the issues You raised in Your letter.
    Dusko Blagojevic

    From: Jaime
    To: Dusko Blagojevic ; Thomsn Reuters
    Cc: Sipka + Beall
    Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 17:16
    Subject: Queries: new Governing Board, Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of the ABS

    Dear Dr. Dusko Blagojevic and Dr. Goran Poznanovic,
    At the outset, I wish to thank you for copying me on your message to Thomson Reuters and to Jeffrey Beall.
    I consider this to be a very positive development for ABS and a hopeful sign for Serbian science and research. I wish you well in your new positions and hope that you are ready to take on the complex challenges that science publishing entails nowadays.
    However, before entering any celebratory mood, I have some lingering concerns and questions about ABS. I would be grateful if you could please provide a formal response to these queries, and then also copy that statement publically, at Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/07/serbian-journal-lands-in-hot-water-after-challenge-on-24-hour-peer-review-that-cost-1785-euros/) and Beall’s blog (http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/06/12/serbian-journal-accepts-paper-in-24-hours-with-no-peer-review-demands-eur-1785/).
    Basically, the scientific community would like to know how you plan to be transparent about the academic activities of this journal in the future, but also how you plan to address the academic irregularities from the past.
    The specific queries I have are as follows:
    a) It appears as if no peer review has in fact taken place at ABS. It is unclear for which manuscripts, and for how long this might have been taking place. How can you prove that the papers let’s say from the past 3 years (2011-2014) have been peer reviewed, given the instant acceptance for a fee provided by your predecessor, Prof. Božidar Ćurčić? Would ABS be willing to provide the peer reviewers’ reports upon request for any paper in this period, or better yet, post all peer reports as an open access file for each paper published in this period?
    b) Will you formally retract any papers that have not been peer reviewed? This includes papers by Prof. Božidar Ćurčić, his son and daughter and other colleagues who are accused of nepotism.
    c) How will you address the manipulation of citations and self-citations that were used to boost your impact factor? Will those papers that manipulated reference lists be retracted?
    d) Between 2010 and 2014, there were numerous cases o plagiarism and self-plagiarism, some extremely serious. Will those papers be retracted? If those papers are not retracted, the message that will ultimately be sent is that ABs embraces, encourages and supports plagiarism, self-plagiarism and serious academic misconduct.
    e) How will you address the issue of predatory fees for no peer review, i.e., pay-for-publish model?
    f) Will you refund those authors who paid fees but had no academic input or peer review for their papers, including all papers that are apparently queued for publication until mid-2015?
    g) Will you inform all authors that published in ABS between 2010-2014 of these problems and your solutions?
    h) Please provide a timetable by which you plan to achieve these objectives, how you plan to address each of the 7 points listed above, and most importantly, who are the individuals who will be leading this effort and taking formal responsibility moving forward?
    I and the wider biological science community look forward to a formal response to these queries, to seeing these issues resolved, and to seeing a public disclosure of acceptance of these past and future responsibilities so that trust can be reclaimed and so that scientists can feel comfortable in submitting papers to ABS, confident in its ethical, transparent and academic posture.
    Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

    On Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:13 AM, Dusko Blagojevic wrote:

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    In light of recent events involving the Archives of Biological Sciences (ABS), Belgrade, at a meeting of the Serbian Biological Society on 17 July, 2014, the resignations of the President/Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Dr. Bozidar Curcic and members of the Editorial Board of the ABS were accepted. At the same meeting, the Society elected a new President and members of the Governing Board, Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of the ABS, as well as a new President of the Society.

    Members of the Serbian Biological Society expressed their unanimous expectation that the newly elected individuals strictly adhere to their commitment to uphold all the principles, ethical standards and good practice of scientific publishing.

    In the hope of your understanding and continued support of the ABS, we remain,

    Yours sincerely,

    Dr Dusko Blagojevic, President of the Governing Board of the ABS,

    Dr. Goran Poznanovic, Editor-in-Chief, ABS”

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,153 other followers

%d bloggers like this: