25 Responses to Avestia Publishing: A New Bottom-Tier Publisher from Canada

  1. Who? says:

    Avestia, not Avesita. The latter makes the reader believe perhaps that the publisher is Mexican.

    • Leopoldo Medina says:

      You should be responsible and careful with your comments.

      Sincerely

      A Mexican citizen

      • Tim says:

        With respect, I don’t understand the motivation for your comment. Do you think Who?’s comment implies something negative about Mexican publishers, or Mexicans in general?

  2. I’m thinking it would be interesting to submit a ‘test balloon paper’ to some of these journals, just to see how their review process works. It shouldn’t be too hard to create a script that randomly assembles words, graphs and graphics from a given set… maybe that could be used to raise some more awareness on this issue. It sounds like a fun side-project.. What are your thoughts on this?

    • I recommend against this because scholarly communication works on the honor system. When you submit a paper to a journal, you are are implicitly stating that it is your own work and that it is original. It’s not fair to play such games with a publisher — even a questionable one.

      • Of course I could create real, original text this way too, but I understand your point. Fair enough. I suppose this also takes publishing a light document (like a workshop paper/technical report) under a pseudonym off the table, as this could also be considered as ‘gaming the system’.

      • grecia J says:

        I do agree with you that, scholar communication works with honor system.But do not understand how can you judge a journal or publisher at the initial stage.

        Every time i have seen you are blaming every publisher for their work at the initial stage.I think you do not have right to blame these publisher by adding there name in to your website is seem to be very useless.

        As per my suggestion, instead of pointing finger to others, if you can do something for the scholarly community by opening few opening access journals it will be better.

        Because pointing figures to others is very easy. But doing something is very difficult. I have seen there are few good publisher, you have spoke about those publisher. If a publisher is earning money, they also have investment for all these work.

      • Whenever I see a publisher that uses deception or lack of transparency, I become very concerned about the quality of the publisher. For example, when a publisher uses fake personal names to sign its spam, when it hides or misrepresents its location, or it hides information about who is behind the operation and what their experience with scholarly publishing is, then I see problems that are likely emblematic of how the publisher will operate. I’ve seen many new scholarly “publishers” set up their websites in a single day, using templates for each of their journals, copying information from other publishers to populate the text on their websites. These small instances of cheating add up to a lot. Why should scholars submit papers to a publisher that uses made-up personal names, hides or misrepresents its true location, and copies author guidelines from another publisher? I don’t think they should, so I hope to warn people away from them.

  3. 239481 says:

    There are some journals of Avestia like this (http://ijecs.avestia.com/board/) that do have an established editorial board. I did a search and found that the people on the editorial board are real, but do you think this editorial board have actually consented to be on that list?

  4. 11210212 says:

    Apparently their submission system is up. You can try submitting a test paper. Although I think they are real. The do seem to have an office in Ottawa, Canada and a phone number. Also, I contacted the editorial board members (randomly) and asked them if they have been put on the list with their notification and some replied mentioning that they have agreed to be on the list.
    Not having an editorial board for some journals is understandable as the institution is a new institution.

  5. […] Altro nome da aggiungere all’elenco degli editori predoni, organizzatori di conferenze idem e Accademie virtuali. Jeffrey Beale dice che “Avestia” sembra il nome di un farmaco per le allergie, in realtà è quello di una small pharma indiana. […]

  6. Tim says:

    I’ve found your blog very helpful so far, in particular for confirming (or at least providing more evidence) that Science and Engineering Publishing Company are bogus. However the question has occurred to me: what would a *legitimate* new publisher (with one or more legitimate new journals) look like? With this Avestia bunch, it seems to me that much of the evidence you have so far collected could equally describe the struggles of a legitimate new publisher. (Whether the fields they cover are already adequately served by existing journals is a separate question. I certainly believe that it ought to be possible for a new publisher to start up in an existing field without automatic condemnation.) Are we perhaps being too hasty to classify new OA publishers as bogus based on equivocal evidence?

    IOW: surely P(new OA publisher actually not bogus) > 0, and in such a case, what would we expect to observe?

    • Here are some things that I would expect to see in a normal new scholarly publisher:

      1. Subscription to a digital preservation service, such as Portico or LOCKSS.
      2. Membership in a professional organization, such as OASPA.
      3. Broad statements on policies such as retraction and authorship disputes.
      4. More specific journal titles, not broad titles that are basically designed to accept almost everything in the field.
      5. Reliance on personal networks other than spam to solicit articles
      6. Be clearer and more transparent about the people behind the operation, who are they? Who owns it? What experience and credentials relating to scholarly publishing do they have? What is their business plan?
      7. Some sort of innovation, new practice, or covering of a new niche, rather than just jumping on the bandwagon and publishing OA journals like all the others

      • Tim says:

        Thanks, those criteria all look good to me. I’m circumspect regarding #7 as I feel that while restricting the number of broad-focus journals helps to prevent dilution of quality, it could equally be argued that it artificially restricts the volume of papers on a deserving topic, and also tends to suppress competition between journals. (This touches on difficult-to-answer questions like “How many journals for topic X/subtopic X.Y.Z *should* there be?”.)

        I was not previously aware of OASPA, Portico or LOCKSS. With some quick searches I was able to verify that BMC and OUP were members of all 3 as expected, while PLOS was a member of OASPA and LOCKSS. Avestia was, as expected, not a member of any.

        Could I suggest putting the information in your post in an article in its own right? I think many would find it interesting. Also I would certainly be interested in reading a longer article on the topic of how to tell which new publishers actually are (or might be) good, if you felt so inclined.

      • Tim says:

        Thanks, bookmarked! (For the link to your “Criteria” page I mean — I can’t seem to reply to your second reply to me, so I’m replying here.)

  7. I may have “proof” that this publisher is bogus.
    I sent a paper to one of their conferences (without checking here first, we all make mistakes) and they accepted it WITHOUT any comment from any reviewers, I asked them for the reviewers comments (to edit the final submission) and they answered that there were none.
    I have all the emails of course.
    This fact triggered some suspicion so that it came to my mind to check here (from now on I’ll check here first) and I found this post and Avestia in the list.
    After that I wrote to them explaining that I had to withdraw my submission, explaining why (pointing them to this site), they just answered that they are not bogus, without any explanation or evidence in favour.
    I thought it was over until I received a mail from them saying that my paper was “selected for possible publication in the journal…” !?!
    Please note that, of course, I did NOT participate to the conference.
    If this is not a bogusness proof…

  8. զեփիւռ says:

    Just found two websites referring to the same conference taking place in two different locations (2nd International Conference on Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow), and with two out of three organizers supposedly matching:

    http://ffhmt.com/

    http://htffconference.com

    What really threw me off was that the former was registered in Nature Events:
    http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/29695-FFHMT_15_2nd_International_Conference_on_Fluid_Flow_Heat_and_Mass_Transfer

    But then I noticed *anyone* can post an event there using the ‘post an event for Free’ option. Thanks, Nature, for paving the way for scammers! Where did your verification process go?

    Good thing I found this website to shed some light.

  9. Raghu says:

    Sir could you shed light on this conference please?
    http://icsenm.com/

    • This is probably a good one to ignore, as it appears to be organized by one of the publishers on my list (International Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (International ASET)).

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

%d bloggers like this: