Scholarly Open Access

Did OMICS Publishing Group’s Owner, Srinubabu Gedela, Commit Plagiarism?

Jeffrey Beall — Tue, 21 May 2013 16:08:59 +0000

Unoriginal, unattributed text inside.

Srinubabu Gedela, the owner of India-based OMICS Publishing Group, authored a chapter in the book Bioinformatics for Omics Data: Methods and Protocols, published by Springer under its imprint Humana Press in 2011. But there’s a problem with his text. The chapter contains unattributed text that originally appeared in earlier publications. The amount of unoriginal text is significant, I think. Most of it appears towards the end of the chapter, suggesting that the text was copied in the rush to meet a deadline.

Through his lawyers, Gedela recently announced his intention to sue me for one billion dollars.

Two paragraphs in Gedela’s chapter match text from the Wikipedia article Grid resource allocation manager. The text in the Wikipedia article pre-dates the 2011 publication of the book chapter, and there is no evidence that Gedela authored the Wikipedia text in question. What kind of scholar copies from Wikipedia without citing the source?

Other portions of text in the Gedela article first appeared in two scholarly journal articles and on one website.

Also, there is a figure in the Gedela article that closely resembles a figure in one of the journal articles. I don’t think the image was copied from the earlier article. Both articles describe the same open-source software, and the image was created using the software in both cases. However, the article that contains the first instance of the figure also contains text that later appears in the Gedela piece, suggesting that Gedela may have gotten the idea for the figure from the earlier work.

I have prepared a two-column analysis of Gedela’s chapter, showing his text on the left along with the previously-published, original text on the right. I will also include a scan of the Gedela article in question.

If i these textual appropriations are confirmed as plagiarism, I think they might ethically disqualify Gedela from serving as a scholarly publisher.

More Controversy Over Open-Access Publisher MDPI

Jeffrey Beall — Thu, 16 May 2013 16:21:20 +0000

Disorder in Switzerland?

Entropy is an open-access journal published by MDPI, the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, based in Basel, Switzerland.

The journals were formerly published by the organization Molecular Diversity Preservation International, until it created the open-access publisher using the same initials, MDPI, as a separate entity. The original MDPI is a .org, and the new one is a .com.

MDPI is not included on my list of predatory publishers. However, I do regularly receive email inquiries about it, an indication that some find its practices suspicious.

I published an article with them once in their journal Future Internet. The article processing charges were waived. I found it strange that the journal asked me to submit names of reviewers for my paper. They didn’t use the editorial board to review it.

The publisher.

Controversy

The article “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases,” recently published in Entropy, has generated some controversy. The Discover Magazine blog Collide-a-Scape published a post entitled When Media Uncritically Cover Pseudoscience. The blog states,

“The paper is by two authors with dubious credentials and is such a mashup of pseudoscience and gibberish that actual scientists have been unable to make sense of it. As one of them also noted, the paper is published in a “low-tier pay-for-play journal.”

The blog post was written after a Reuters reporter wrote a story based on the paper. The reporter accepted the paper as fact, apparently without doing any original reporting.

The paper claims that the the chemical glyphosate — found in the herbicide Roundup — is linked to multiple common diseases including “inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations.” The controversy is described in the Wikipedia article on the journal. Entropy has an impact factor of 1.183.

Some progressive groups, accepting the article as fact, have used it in their discourse. One example is the website Nation of Change, which covered the article in their news section. Other groups, such as Common Dreams, used the story in a similar fashion. This is an example of how political policymakers can be victims of questionable science.

MDPI is no stranger to controversial articles. See here, here, and here for information on earlier controversies.

One of the definitions for the word entropy given by Wictionary is “The tendency of a system that is left to itself to descend into chaos.” We may be witnessing this process occurring presently with MDPI.

“Please add my journal to your list”

Jeffrey Beall — Tue, 14 May 2013 15:03:40 +0000

I’m happy to add this to my list, sure.

I regularly receive emails from new open-access publishers asking me to add their publisher or journal to one of my lists.

My lists include publishers and standalone journals that I have found to be predatory or questionable in their practices, so it’s odd that a publisher would request inclusion.

I assume they do it because they are trying to promote their publications and just go through some list of websites, sending the same boilerplate email to all the email addresses on the list. In their rush to make money, predatory publishers typically pay little attention to important details.

I investigate each journal or publisher, finding that in most cases they merit inclusion on my list. I’m delighted to fulfill their requests, carefully archiving a copy of each email so that in a possible future lawsuit, I can say, “Hey, you ASKED to be placed on my list.”

Here is one such request I received on May 8, 2013:

Hello And Good Evening Mr. Jeffrey Beall,

My name is Samuel Rivero and i am working as a internee for International Journal of Biology, the reason why i am sending you this e-mail is because i was hoping that if you can add our Journal’s name on this page: http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/

The aim of IJOBIO is to publish peer reviewed research and review articles in rapidly developing field of all biological research areas. This journal is an online journal having full access to the research and review paper. The journal aims to cover the latest outstanding developments in the field of all biological Research Areas specifically in the following branches.

Keep in mind we are a non-profit organization and we mostly provide Journal publication services to 3rd world countries. It’ll be a huge favor if you can add the name of our journal in the “Individual Journals” list.

URL of our journal: http://www.ijobio.com

Best Wishes,

Samuel Rivero

Upon investigating this standalone journal, I discovered deceit.

The journal uses the nickname International Journal of Bio, and most of the claims in the email are false.

The new journal has “published” four issues, but upon closer examination, it really hasn’t. It’s a ruse. Among the four issues, there are only six articles. At least some of them are copied from the former BioMed Central (BMC) journal called the Journal of Biology. In 2010, this journal merged with BMC Biology, and the merged journal is called BMC Biology.

Here’s an example:

Article from bogus journal: Progress so far in genetic kin recognition among vertabrates
Original article from BMC Biology: Making progress in genetic kin recognition among vertebrates

The publisher of the new journal has taken previously-published articles and edited them, changing some of the words, and published them as new original articles in the journal.

What a scam! I can’t figure out where this journal is based, and my reply email to “Samuel Rivero” bounced back. Do not submit to this journal. Be wary of all OA journals.

Another Questionable Publisher Emerges from Canada

Jeffrey Beall — Thu, 09 May 2013 16:16:04 +0000

One of many in Canada.

We recently learned about the Canadian Science and Technology Press Inc. a scholarly publisher with six brand-new scholarly journals. The journal lists an address in the Toronto, Ontario suburb of Richmond Hill. Only two of the six journals have any content. One, the Canadian Journal of Plant Protection, has published two issues. The other one with content is the Canadian Journal of Plant Breeding, which has published one issue.

Unfortunately, both journals have published content that originally appeared in other publications. For example, the Canadian Journal of Plant Protection includes the article “In vitro evaluation of some chemicals and plant extracts against colony growth of Xanthomonas campestris pv. malvacearum causing bacterial blight of cotton” in its first issue. This same article was previously published in another journal, namely vol. 3, no. 1 of the European Journal of Experimental Biology, published by Pelagia Research Library, another publisher on my list. So, this is an instance of duplicate publication.

Stolen title.

One of the new journals the Canadian Science and Technology Press is launching is called Scientific Canadian. This name is already in use by a prominent blog, so it appears the publisher is trying to “borrow” some of the blog’s name recognition value. The publisher indicates it is an open-access publisher but doesn’t disclose what its author processing charges will be. Also, it is unclear who is really behind this operation.

The publisher displays a page counter on its pages. When I first began examining the publisher, most of the page views were close to 70,000. Now, a couple days later, they are all around 80,000. I don’t think the counters are honest.

I recommend against submitting papers to this publisher or agreeing to serve on its editorial boards. There are many operations similar to this one in Canada, which is becoming a very popular place for low-quality, predatory publishers.

Appendix: List of journals published by the Canadian Science and Technology Press Inc. as of May 6, 2013

Scientific Canadian
Canadian Journal of Plant Protection (CJPP)
Canadian Journal of Plant Breeding (CJPB)
Canadian Journal of Genomic Era (CJGE)
Canadian Journal of Food Science (CJFS)
Canadian Journal of Animal Research (CJAR)
Canadian Journal of Green Energy Research (CJGER)

The Serials Crisis is Over.

Jeffrey Beall — Tue, 07 May 2013 15:03:58 +0000

Quotations about the serials crisis (below).

I declare that the serials crisis, the event that gave birth to the open-access movement, is over. I base my declaration on my observations as an academic librarian and on the scholarly literature, selections from which I include here:

“The value for money that the Big Deal and similar licenses have brought, has largely contributed to the ending of the serials crisis …” ^[1]

“This study, reporting on a national survey of academics primarily based in New Zealand’s eight universities, reinforces and adds to an emerging picture of institutional repositories worldwide. The findings, along with those of many earlier studies bring into question whether the crisis in scholarly communication is as acute as some have suggested, and whether institutional repositories are a solution that the academic community is looking for. Most academics are clearly operating productively within the existing methods of scholarly communication, while making use of subject repositories, and other channels to connect with their disciplinary community in ways that appear to satisfy their needs. These needs, for communication with their peers, and those related to reward systems (promotion and tenure) appear to be being met.”^[2]

“Q: Librarians insist that they continue to be plagued by price increases. You are saying that the serials crisis is over?

A: The serials crisis refers to a situation that existed at the end of the 1990s, when we saw big increases well above inflation. Those days are long gone, and I strongly feel that our products now offer value for money. In fact, the cost per unit has fallen, and in the last 10 years, libraries have gotten more and more for the same money.”^[3]

“Publishers, through the oft-reviled “Big Deal” packages, are providing much greater and more egalitarian access to the journal literature, an approximation to true Open Access.”^[4]

“The median of the number of serials received by ARL members almost quadrupled during the period under investigation, going from 21,187 in the 1989-1990 academic year to 80,292 in the 2009-2010 one. Practically the entire increase took place during the last half a dozen years, without any big changes in funding patterns, and appears to be due primarily to ‘Big Deals’.”^[4]

“Reacting to the criticism and to the journal cancellations, the scholarly publishing industry took action. They granted libraries new economies of scale, one in the form of journal bundling, which increased the number of titles that individual academic libraries were able to afford and make available to their users. The second economy of scale was to grant deep discounts to library consortia. Repurposing existing library cooperative ventures involving traditional library functions such as cataloging, libraries organized regional and statewide consortia – groups of libraries that function basically as buyers’ cooperatives. Publishers competed with each other for libraries’ business, granting deep discounts that essentially resolved the serials crisis by 2004.” ^[5]

References

1. Ware, M. & Mabe, M. (2009). The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2009 report). Retrieved from International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers website: http://www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf

2. Cullen, R. & Chawner, B. (2011). Institutional repositories, open access, and scholarly communication: A study of conflicting paradigms. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 37, 460-470.

3. Poynder, R. (2011). Not looking for sympathy: Interview with Derk Haank. Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/it/jan11/Interview-with-Derk-Haank.shtml

4. Odlyzko, A. (2013). Open Access, library and publisher competition, and the evolution of general commerce. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1105

5. Beall, J. (2013). Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing 26, 79-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20130203

New Open-Access Publisher Launches with 66 Journal Titles

Jeffrey Beall — Thu, 02 May 2013 15:47:56 +0000

Here be dragons.

Recently launched, and with 66 brand-new journals, Horizon Research Publishing Corporation carefully hides its headquarters location on its website. The “contact us” page does not list any location. [Update, 2013-06-08: The website now lists this address: Horizon Research Publishing 506 N GARFIELD AVE #210 ALHAMBRA CA 91801 USA].

Its spam email is signed, “Horizon Research Publishing, USA,” but I doubt it’s really from the United States. The publisher uses the URL http://zj.nkwww.com/, which is registered to Wanlun Guo in Linyi, Shandong, China. So apparently this is a Chinese operation and the spam email is misrepresenting the publisher’s true location. [See a copy of the spam email in Appendix B, below.]

None of the 66 journals has any content yet, and none appears to have editorial boards either. Horizon is currently engaged in a massive spam email campaign to recruit editorial board members. Strangely all the journals have live “Submit manuscript” buttons, so the publisher seems willing to accept papers despite not having any established editorial boards.

Its Twitter account has ten followers and its Facebook page has one “like,” an indication that this is a new operation. The publisher’s logo is a stylized unicorn.

I found this on one of the firm’s FAQ pages:

Q2: How can I know the status of my paper?

A: Please send your paper title and paper ID to preview@hrpub.org. The editorial assistant (Alice Bella) will give you a promote response within 48 hours.

I think that “Alice” and “Bella” are two figures from contemporary popular culture, so this seems like a contrived name to me. Also, the answer is ungrammatical.

The journals cover a broad array of disciplines, and each has a broad scope within its particular field. This dual strategy means that pretty much every scientific article has a potential place in the publisher’s portfolio. Each journal’s home page is similar to all the others; they all were built off the same template.

The publisher is waiving all article processing charges through July, 2013 and will then charge $150 per article, not an unreasonable fee.

I don’t think the world needs another 66 OA jorunals with broad scopes. The publisher’s use of “USA” in its spam may be an attempt to mislead. I recommend against joining these editorial boards and against submitting any papers to this publisher.

Appendix A: List of Horizon Publishing Journals as of May 1, 2013:

Appendix B: Example of spam email sent out by Horizon Publishing in April, 2013:

From: “joinus@hrpub.org”
To: “—” <[redacted]>>
Sent: April 26, 2013 9:55 AM
Subject: Horizon Research Publishing: Call for Editorial Board Members/Reviewers/Editor-in-Chief

Dear Colleages,

Horizon Research Publishing (HRPUB) is a worldwide open access publisher serving the academic research and scientific communities by launching peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

We are seeking to establish a new international Editorial Board. If this experience sounds interesting to you, please complete the downloadable application form, and send it to joinus@hrpub.org.

Apply for Membership ( Editorial Board Members / Reviewers / Editor-in-Chief )

(1) Download <http://www.hrpub.org/download/HRPUB_Membership_Application_Form.pdf> the membership application form .

(2) Complete and send the application form to joinus@hrpub.org .

Look forward to receiving your application.

Yours sincerely,

Horizon Research Publishing , USA
joinus@hrpub.org
http://www.hrpub.org

–
If you no longer wish to receive email from us, please click this link<http://service.hrpubmail.org/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=21d3b7784f5fcc09fad4ca1c0ff61ca0>

[End of blog post]

The Onslaught of Questionable Open-Access Journals Persists Unabated

Jeffrey Beall — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:28:56 +0000

On April, 8, I was quoted in a New York Times article about questionable open-access publishers and questionable conferences. Since that day I’ve been happy to receive many emails, some with suggestions about possible publishers and standalone journals to add to my lists.

Below are three publishers and two standalone journals that I added to my lists after completing an analysis of each. For each I’ve listed the name, a representative image, a selection of the reasons for including the publisher / journal on my list, and a short discussion.

1. Scribes Guild:

Scribes Guild (note the typo in the image)

Reasons for inclusion:

The publisher does not reveal its location information.
The site includes content pirated from other websites (i.e. privacy policy, authors’ guidelines)
The site has numerous broken links and dead image links.
Some of its journals have empty editorial boards but they have papers published.

Discussion: This publisher has a spare website with its format copied from existing sites. It was probably created in a single sitting. This publisher is part of a recent surge of similar operations coming from Nigeria.

2. International Journal Publishers Group:

International Journal Publishers Group

Reasons for inclusion:

The Publisher is not a group of publishers as indicated in the name; it is a single publisher.
The publisher claims its journals will be indexed in services that are not abstracting and indexing services.
The publisher appears to use the same editorial board for all its journals
The publisher does not reveal its headquarters location or address.
The publisher requires copyright transfer
The site makes no mention of whether authors are charged an APC or the amount.

Discussion: I cannot figure out where this publisher is based. It uses the ubiquitous Open Journals Systems software, a favorite of low-quality publishers. Its servers are slow, and some of its journals, such as the International Journal of Advanced Mechanic [sic] Engineering still lack any content.

3. Design for Scientific Renaissance:

Design for Scientific Renaissance

Reasons for inclusion:

The publisher gratuitously uses the logos of Elsevier, Thomson Reuters, Scopus and Emerald on some of its pages.
The editorial boards are listed but lack members’ institutional affiliations.
The site makes no mention of whether authors are charged an APC and if so, the amount.
Some of the journals use the word “advanced” in their titles but the articles do not reflect advanced research.
There are instances of plagiarism among the articles.
The author guidelines are pirated from other sites.

Discussion: This publisher is from Malaysia (which it clearly states). I am not sure why this publisher plasters the Elsevier, Thomson Reuters, and other logos on its web pages. The name, Design for Scientific Renaissance, is contrived and corny.

4. International Journal of Medicine and Biosciences:

International Journal of Medicine and Biosciences (IJMB)

Reasons for inclusion:

The journal does not list a headquarters location.
The journal lists a fictitious person as its editor in chief (A. Anderson from the International University, Cambodia). Also, editorial board members are listed without institutional affiliations.
Some of the articles contain plagiarism.
Much of the journal’s content (such as its editorial policy) is copied from other publishers without attribution.
The journal mentions an article processing charge on its website but doesn’t state the amount.
The journal claims to be indexed in services that are not abstracting and indexing services.

Discussion: This journal is trying to be a mega-journal and wants to accept practically any article that might match or come remotely close to its scope. The world does not need another journal on this topic; there are too many already. This is likely a one-man operation in which the man wants to do an hour’s work every day and watch the money roll in.

5. International Journal of Trends in Economics Management and Technology (IJTEMT):

International Journal of Trends in Economics Management and Technology (IJTEMT)

Reasons for inclusion:

The publisher’s headquarters location is not listed.
The journal requires that authors transfer their copyright
The journal charges a higher, per-page APC for papers above eight pages.
The journal makes false and boastful statements including, “As the world’s leading publisher of Economics Management and Technology, IJTEMT serves more than 30 million Researchers, Students, Academecians [sic] & information professionals worldwide.”
The journal promises a two-week turnaround time for peer review.

Discussion: This journal is brand new and lacks any content. It shows three issues as being published, but this is just a ruse. In fact, the three issues each have a table of contents and abstracts listed and no full text. The article titles and abstracts are lifted from other publications. An example is the article Rough logic for building a landmine classifier from volume 1, issue 6 of this journal, an article that originally appeared here.

Conclusion: These are only a few of the publishers I’ve added to my list in April. The numbers of questionable journals and publishers are surging. Every day I receive new “nominations” from concerned scholars. The increasing predominance of predatory publishers in the scholarly open-access publishing industry seriously threatens the future of the open-access movement.

Hat tips:

Another Society Journal Hijacked ?

Jeffrey Beall — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:41:15 +0000

The impostor site.

The journal Bradleya, published by the British Cactus and Succulent Society appears to have been hijacked. Journal hijacking is the process of maliciously setting up a duplicate website for a respected journal and then inviting article submissions for the legitimate journal on the hijacked page.

Website of the authentic journal: http://www.bcss.org.uk/brad.php
Website of hijacked journal: http://www.britishedu.org.uk/

The hijackers make money by collecting the author fees on the submitted papers. In this case, the hijackers are not making any material available open access; each article listed on the site has an abstract but no full text. There is a “BUY NOW” button with each abstract. So they are potentially making money by selling articles as well.

Volumes 1-5 (1983-1987) copy the original Bradleya tables of contents. Then there is a gap, and then volumes 28-31 (2010-2013) apear. The later issues have abstracts for articles covering diverse scientific topics. The ISSN and impact factor from the authentic journal are copied on the bogus journal’s website.

The hijacked site has a new scope and claims “The journal publishes experimental and theoretical results of research on, amongst other topics, semiconductors, magnetic materials, and applied biophysics.”

A portion of the authentic journal’s website.

Bradleya is actually the society’s yearbook, published once a year. I sent a message to the society informing them of this but have not received a reply. I am unable to determine who is behind this hijacking.

Vanity Journals are Threatening Taxonomy

Jeffrey Beall — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:03:30 +0000

A must-read article.

Recently I have learned about two self-published “journals” that are creating havoc for insect and reptile taxonomists. These are the two journals:

Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Calodema (Calodema is a genus of beetles)

These two unrelated journals are basically self-published, vanity journals. They focus on taxonomy, “the scientific process by which natural groups are identified, described, named, and classified” (Kaiser et al., 2013, p. 8).

Moreover, “taxonomists, like courts, must deal with precedent” and “Because of the importance of precedent, taxonomy is uniquely vulnerable to crackpots” (Myrmecos Blog, December 13, 2007).

Further, “In herpetology, unscientific taxonomy under the guise of science, has been presented with increasing frequency in nonprofessional outlets since the year 2000″ (Kaiser et al., 2013, p. 9).

The recently-published article, Best practices: In the 21st century, taxonomic decisions in herpetology are acceptable only when supported by a body of evidence and published via peer-review, provides a pitch-perfect description of the problem and offers a call to action for resolving the problems that these “taxonomic vandals” have been causing. The article is an excellent example of boundary work, which is the process of enforcing the demarcation between science and non-science.

It is the best herpetology article I have ever read.

The Australasian Journal of Herpetology is published by Raymond Hoser in Victoria, Australia. Regarding this journal, Kaiser et al. (2013), claim, “Although the AJH masquerades as a scientific journal, it is perhaps better described as a printed ‘blog’ because it lacks many of the hallmarks of formal scientific communication and includes much irrelevant information” (p. 17).

Regarding Calodema, one blogger reports “The journal Calodema has become the red herring in taxonomic publishing because of the very low standards of its publications (BIOSYSCONTEXT, March 5, 2011). Calodema calls itself a “new scientific natural history journal edited by Dr Trevor J. Hawkeswood of Sydney, Australia.”

Hawkeswood likes to name things after himself; Hawkeswoodidae is a family of spiders. His journal is really a component of his blog, which is called The Life and Works of Dr. Trevor J. Hawkeswood.

The solution is to limit taxonomy to authentically peer-reviewed articles.

References

BIOSYSCONTEXT (March 5, 2011). Makham, Hawkeswood and Calodema: What a strange set-up [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://biosyscontext.blogspot.com/2011/03/makham-hawkeswood-and-calodema-what.html

Kaiser, H., Crother, B. I., Kelly, C. M. R., Luiselli, L., O’Shea, M., Ota, H., et al. (2013). Best practices: In the 21st century, taxonomic decisions in herpetology are acceptable only when supported by a body of evidence and published via peer-review. Herpetological Review 44(1), 8–23.

Myrmecos Blog (December 13, 2007). The rogue taxonomist [Web log post]. Retrieved from: http://myrmecos.net/2007/12/13/the-rogue-taxonomist/

Will Article Promotion Companies Make Article-Level Metrics Obsolete ?

Jeffrey Beall — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:01:33 +0000

Danger Will Robinson!

Scientists beware: There is a new scholarly publishing-related scheme that aims to separate you from your money. I recently blogged about several emerging, web-based companies that promise to promote individual scholarly articles for a fee. There no common term to describe this scheme, so I am making one up: Article Promotion Companies, or APCs. If you haven’t yet received a spam email from one of these companies, you will soon. They will write you about one of your recent articles and offer to promote it for you on their websites. The fees range from about USD $15-30.

I think the emergence of these companies will distort and perhaps invalidate article-level metrics (ALMs). Paid article promotion schemes will game article-level impact measurements. They will gratuitously inflate a particular article’s actual quantifiable impact. One of these companies is called Educational Researches. The company hides its location. It uses a WordPress platform and uses Wikipedia content to make itself look legitimate. Here is an example of one of their spam emails:

I am pleased to inform you that the Educational Researches team has identified your recent publication, [Redacted] as being of special interest to the progress in the Education field. We would like to list your publication on our next edition of the Educational Researches series.

Educational Researches was founded in 2013 for alerts the scientific community to breaking journal articles considered to represent the best in Education research. For today’s edition, click here. Educational Researches is viewed almost 10,000 times each month.

Publications featured by Educational Researches gain extensive exposure. This exposure may benefit you and your organization since this provides a showcase for key research studies such as yours. This exposure has the added benefit of encouraging additional funding.

There is a small processing charge for listing publications on Educational Researches (only $15). Please let us know if you are interested in having your work featured on our website. If you accept our invitation we will post the summary of your article and key words with proper citation of the original Journal. This may extend your findings; further highlight the importance of your work and organization’s activities. We will process your publication after receiving the payment click here. (Upon payment, please notify us the Article Title, and the Corresponding Author Name. Please send a very brief email to editor@educationalresearches.com)

We do operate within a narrow time frame to meet our aim of delivering breaking publications and we therefore request that if you do wish to be featured you contact us as soon as possible.

Whether or not you are interested please feel free to register to our Educational Researches service at http://www.EducationalResearches.com

Sincerely…

Editor of Educational Researches

Email: editor@educationalresearches.com

Web: www.EducationalResearches.com

Soon we’ll likely see companies that will use social media to promote your research for you, for a fee. The facility with which one can game article-level impact measurements is making the good old impact factor seem even more valuable.