8 Responses to Hair Journal Reveals OMICS’ Exploitation of Researchers

  1. Yehuda Klein says:

    It is hard to rank spammers. However the two Publishers that annoy me most often are Bentham Open and SCIRP.

    • Ole, Ole! says:

      Yehuda, My top spammers list is, in alphabetical order, counting 2013-2014 from my and my associated e-mail accounts (give or take 5% error):
      AASCIT: 121 e-mails
      Academic Journals: several dozen (mainly invitations to review)
      Apex Journals: 50 e-mails
      Basic Research Journals: 153 e-mails
      Blue Pen Journals: 45 e-mails
      Comprehensive Research Journals: 122 e-mails
      Herald Journals: 67 e-mails
      International Scholars Journals: 231 e-mails
      Intercontinental Research Journals: 53 e-mails
      International Research Journals: 718 e-mails
      LinkedIn: 871 e-mails (all invitations to link)
      Merit Research Journals: 164 e-mails
      Omics: about 50 (including the same style you are a specialist bla-bla-bla)
      Open Science Online: 97 e-mails
      Peak Journals: 40 e-mails
      Photon JOurnals: 206 e-mails
      Random predatory publisher spam: 1557 e-mails
      Prime Journals: 83 e-mails
      ResearchGate: 87 e-mails
      Science Publishing Group: 315 e-mails
      Scientific spam related to company products: in escess of 600 e-mails
      Standard Research Journals: 84 e-mails
      Universal Research Journals: 55 e-mails
      Wudpecker Journals: 172 e-mails

      What this indicates:
      a) scientists are bombarded with rubbish daily, and it is increasingly difficult to discern what is honest and accurate from what is not.
      b) precious time is lost either filetering out spam, classifying it, or reading it. These publishers hope that by throwing in dozens of hooks loaded with palstic bait int the science waters that they will hook some good fish. And they do.
      c) Omics does exactly what at least another 20 heavy spammers do, most of which are listed on Beall’s 2014 list.
      d) In addition tot he above list, there are about 50 OA publishers that have sent me a moderate amount of spam in 2 years (20-40 e-mails).

      • Dave Langers says:

        Impressive list, horrific as the burden is.
        However, I do hope that you do not consider invitations to review as spam (provided they are somewhere reasonably near your field of expertise). Peer review is part of the job. There may be various models how to obtain this, but invited reviews are valuable and legit.

      • I agree, but it is common for predatory publishers to solicit ad hoc peer reviews from scholars with no connection to a journal’s focus. For example, when an engineering researcher is invited to review a cardiology article, or when an ecologist is asked to review a business management paper, something is not right.

  2. herr doktor bimler says:

    Thinning ethics.

    I hope this is not the beginning of a Pun escalation between you and the RetractionWatch bloggers.

  3. P Canning says:

    So let’s see: open access publishing has resulted in scamsters, spammers, deceivers and fraudsters. What good is it to anyone?

    • Dave Langers says:

      That is about as good an argument as “e-mail has led to spam, so what good is that?”, and certainly no better than “subscription-based publishing has led to publisher monopolies, so what good is that?”. Fraudsters are everywhere where there is something to be gained from fraud. The answer is to guard against them, not throw away the child with the bathwater. Personally, I have never experienced much trouble distinguishing spam from proper opportunities so far. This blacklist is one helpful tool among several; common sense, healthy reservations, and backbone are others.

      • Ole, Ole! says:

        Dave, your position is praiseworthy, but, I am afraid, you represent a tiny minority on the global scene. Please spend a solid day browsing through the papers of most of those journals of the publishers listed on Beall’s list, and I would estimate that most are emerging from developing countries. This is not about you or I being able to recognize the dirty bathwater, but rather about convincing the vast majority of scientists from developing countries that publishing in such journals is unhealthy for their curriculae and for science. The great problem at the moment is that many of them (most?) get full OA fee waivers for the classical “I’m poor from a poor country argument”, making sloppy peer review (or none at all), scamy and spammy e-mails a non-irritant for them. For them, they simply don’t care. They just want to see whatever it is they have produced in a year published in a PDF file. This is the real truth behind why the “corrupt” and non-academic OA movement will flourish and grow.

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: