Indian Open-Access Publisher Assigns Metrics to Its Own Journals

Researchjournali logo

Crazy name, crazy publisher.

We recently learned about the scholarly open-access publisher called Researchjournali. It launched with 24 broad journals and is based in Odisha, India. It promises an “editorial decision” in seven days, and authors get to suggest their own peer reviewers.

The publisher’s name is pronounced “Research Journal Eye.” Pretty clever, no? Kind of like Ipod, only for journals, and the “I” is at the end. The publisher has trademarked the name, which is good because I am sure many would want to copy it, it’s so clever.

As we stated, its journals all have a broad scope. One of them is Journal of Education, for example, which is excellent, because the education field really needed another open-access, broad-scoped journal.

In fact, the Journal of Education is this publisher’s top journal. It has the highest RJ factor, and this is a metric created and assigned by this very same publisher.

Equal to the impact factor, no?

Equal to the impact factor, no?

The publisher’s website explains the metric:

RJ Factor is a unique index for ranking academic journals published by us in various disciplines. This is an algorithm that assigns score in the range of 0 to 8 to research journals and it is calculated based on available data and other statistics from different sources. RJ factor is used by institutions, librarians and researchers to rank our journals and this is equivalent to other available measures often used for ranking of scholarly journals

In other words, the numbers are just made up, and their purpose is to trick naïve researchers into thinking they are submitting their work to legitimate journals.

Perhaps the only really redeeming thing about this publisher is the hilarious advertising video they have produced and uploaded to YouTube. It features an American actor reading a script written in Indian dialect English. I found it funny and also pitifully sad.

Appendix: Researchjournali journals as of 2014-08-13:

  1. Journal of Accounting
  2. Journal of Advertising
  3. Journal of Agriculture
  4. Journal of Business Ethics
  5. Journal of Commerce
  6. Journal of Computer Science
  7. Journal of Economics
  8. Journal of Education
  9. Journal of Entrepreneurship
  10. Journal of Finance
  11. Journal of Geography
  12. Journal of History
  13. Journal of Hospitality Tourism
  14. Journal of Human Resource
  15. Journal of Information Technology
  16. Journal of Management
  17. Journal of Marketing
  18. Journal of Mathematics
  19. Journal of Media Studies
  20. Journal of Public Policy
  21. Journal of Sociology
  22. Journal of Sports Management
  23. Journal of Supply Chain Management
  24. Journal of Technology Management

18 Responses to Indian Open-Access Publisher Assigns Metrics to Its Own Journals

  1. Angela Cochran says:

    Something tells me that he doesn’t really wear glasses. Sad.

    • Dan Riley says:

      Watching his eyes and listening to the handful of stumbles over non-idiomatic phrases, it looked to me like a “cold reading”, i.e. first time he saw the script.

  2. P Canning says:

    people who support open access publishing are either frauds or living with their head in the sand, not getting that traditional publishers like Elsevier are the best way to publish for authors today and will be the best way in the future. the sooner open access publishing stops, the better it will be for everyone.

  3. Chris cole says:

    Interesting video. I hope the actor was well compensated.

    Much of what he said made perfect sense> Unfortunately there is no evidence that this specific publisher meets any of the evaluation criteria the actor is spouting.

    In the end, I wonder how many of the authors understand that this is pure pay to publish? For some of them there is no problem as long as their employers don’t care about the quality of the journal.

    As a librarian, I want to know who the pay to publish title so we never purchase the title. I also have no reservation telling administrators and supervisors of researchers about these dodgy titles.

    Perhaps a few folks given bad reviews or non-renewed contracts will be an example to the First World authors of the downside of using these journals.

    • J.J. says:

      ‘For some of them there is no problem as long as their employers don’t care about the quality of the journal’ YES exactly. They were told to publish, so they published.

      A lot of the institutions worldwide fell for the syllogistic fallacy that if successful researchers tend to publish a lot, researchers who publish a lot are necessarily successful.

      The consequence is that legitimate science literature is drowning in an ocean of crap – sorry I meant fake, redundant, or marginally incremental content.

  4. Alex SL says:

    it is calculated based on available data and other statistics from different sources

    I will have to keep this brilliant sentence in mind for my next manuscript.

  5. L. S. says:

    Most often I’ve had to pay page charges in the science journals, even for the journal of my subscription-only professional society. It is also a standard entry on research grants with NSF and NIH. I would rather pay an open access fee that allows more people to see the paper, so I like the open access model. However, the stuff reported here is REALLY CRAZY and out of control. I refer students and, as a department chair, faculty to this blog because it is essential to protect them from terrible publishers. The research community needs to develop some way of certifying journals and/or publishers. It’s not fair to make Beale do it all, though I wait eagerly for the next entry every time. Amazing blog.

    My university offers to pay for one open access article a year for faculty, because the libraries are frustrated with the subscription model. It would be great if there was some sort of review of what sorts of journals they are paying fees to.

    As to Elsevier, I recently published a book with them and at least in some cases they do NO EDITING. That is why there are so many books full of bad writing out there these days. Of course we did our best but having an editor is so much better.

    • J.J. says:

      ‘The research community needs to develop some way of certifying journals and/or publishers’

      Honestly, don’t legitimate researchers know the good journals in their field? I’m pretty sure they do.

      The problem is that some struggle to publish their stuff into reputable journals because of poor quality (some will say ‘pressure to publish by their institution’), so they turn to pay-for-publish schemes. I have my doubts about the number of people who are legitimately fooled by these fake publishers.

  6. P Canning says:

    The 13 persons who voted down my comments are the ones about whom the comment was written. I am sure that these are the people who are blind supporters of open access publishing. The sooner these people realize that open access publishing is nothing but a game of cheating used by crooks, the sooner world will be a better place to live in.

    • Chris cole says:

      The critical issue is not whether the journal is open access or subscription based. It is whether the journal in fact provides peer review and editing services. These “predatory” publishers provide no services and yet promote themselves as quality peer reviewed journals.

      This vanity publishing model is in large part sustainable because the readers do not need to pay to view the articles. I doubt any of these predatory journals would survive if they had to convince users to subscribe or renew a subscription.

      There are many open access journals that have high quality content . That quality is sustained through peer review and editing. Look at PLOS and Hindawi to name just two open access publishers.

      So please J Canning, it is far too simplistic to blame the quality problem on the mode of access. The fact that a journal is open access does not mean that it will be poor quality.

    • Ole, Ole! says:

      P. Canning. Springer and Elsevier both publish open access journals, as do Taylor and Francis, Wiley and DeGruyter. Not to mention many other large and medium-sized publishers. Are you suggesting that they, too, are also all crooks? In addition, are you suggesting that all papers published, for example, in the BMC series, are all bad science, or bad scientists? Perhaps the thumbs down were not so much because they believe that certain OA publishers are corrupt, or crooks (as you put it), bt because you have labelled ALL OA publishing as being corrupt. Perhaps you could elaborate on the exact reasons why you think that the whole OA publishing is corrupt and why those who do support it, in many cases excellent and intelligent scientists, are so blind?

      • Sven says:

        If you look at the other comments of ‘P Canning’ on the other blog posts, you will realize that he/she is a troll. Don’t feed trolls. :)

      • P Canning says:

        My advice to you is read more about open access publishing. If you can not find anything, I can refer you to an excellent article written by none other than Jeffrey Beall himself in which he has explored in-depth about this phenomenon and its effects on scholarly publishing (The Open Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access). Here is the link: http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/viewFile/525/514 I am sure that after reading this you will agree with everything I am saying – that open access is causing harm to scholars. Remember my comments because very soon in future when this whole thing blows up, you will understand the reality. I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.

  7. R Samakoses says:

    dear mr. jeffrey beall,

    thank you for your hard work. I am medicine physician working in khon kaen, thailand. I have been offered editorship of a medical journal. can i get advice to advertise journal. can i send emails?

    many thanks.

  8. […] with the RJ Factor is that the numbers are just made up and according to Jeffrey Beall on his blog Scholarly Open Access, the false metrics are used to trick naive researchers into thinking they are submitting their work […]

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,191 other followers

%d bloggers like this: