The International Journal of Simulation Modelling: A Review

International Journal of Simulation Modelling

A good model ?

I’ve received inquiries about the International Journal of Simulation Modelling. It’s not on my list, but it is borderline, at best. Let me show you what I mean.

The journal uses the delayed open-access model. This means that the published content is accessible only to subscribers for a fixed time period (in this case a year), and then is open-access after that.

Generally, this is a fine model because it combines some of the best features of both the open-access and subscription models. Usually, with delayed open-access, the publishing is free to authors, and the journal expenses are covered by library subscriptions. The delayed OA model spreads out the publishing costs among subscribers, providing sufficient funding for the journal to operate smoothly and professionally.

However, in the case of this journal, the model operates differently: both authors and subscribers are charged. Authors pay €690 per paper accepted, a high amount given the overall amateurish appearance of the journal. A quarterly that began publishing in 2002, the journal sells annual print subscriptions for €200.

It appears that for the first year after they’re published, online access to articles in the International Journal of Simulation Modelling is only available through library vendors at subscribing libraries. So the journal efficiently profits by licensing its content to one or two jobbers who themselves re-license the online content to libraries.

The journal is published by a company called DAAAM International, which claims to be based in Vienna. It may really operate out of Maribor, Slovenia, which is where the Editor-in-Chief, Borut Buchmeister, is based.

International Journal of Simulation Modelling editorial board

Missing some important data.

The editorial board members are listed without any affiliations, an omission that always makes me wonder whether the names are just made up.

International Journal of Simulation Modelling impact factor

Not a measure of quality, as this journal shows

The journal has an impact factor of 2.083, and to me, this serves as a reminder that the impact factor is not a measure of quality.

The journal sells “sponsorships.”. Your university can be a co-sponsor for €1,200 or a general sponsor for €3,600. It appears that Beijing Jiaotong University has paid to be a general sponsor, for its name appears at the top of the website. A link on the website advertises for additional sponsors and states the terms of sponsorship.

International Journal of Simulation Modelling sponsors

Your [University] name here!

Overall, I find the International Journal of Simulation Modelling to be a medium- to low-quality — but not exactly predatory — journal that is probably making a lot of money for its owners. It earns money from library vendors, from authors, and from “sponsors.” It may have additional sources of revenue.

 

 

12 Responses to The International Journal of Simulation Modelling: A Review

  1. Damien Kuffler says:

    Dear Jeffrey Beall, I greatly appreciate your efforts to expose journals that are predatory and unscrupulous. I am writing to comment about a journal called Regenerative Medicine published by a group called Future Medicine. I was initially invited to be an editor of the journal when it was initiated. rapidly it published some good quality papers and its impact factor started to rise. However, it turned out that this increase was determined to be because of excessive self referencing and it lost its formal impact factor rating. The journal description clearly states that it is both open access and one can select not to be open access and therefore not pay the open access fee, which is $1,800. Since the journal still has a good readership, I recently submitted a review to the journal. The paper was accepted for publication and I reiterated that that I did not want open access because I could not, and would not pay that amount of money for such a journal. Recently when one of the editors wrote to me in association with gallies requiring editing, I was told I was required to pay the $1,800 open access fee. I wrote back appropriately documenting the journals statements about the author selecting how they wanted papers to be published, with or without a fee. They were adamant about me paying the $1,800, which I have absolutely said no to. I am waiting to see what response I get. I think this is completely inappropriate because the journal places pressure on authors by claiming that the paper will be published as open access and attempts to place guild on the author to pressure them to accept paying the fee. Again thank you for the service you are providing all of us who want to assure that published papers are legitimate and we are not being had by predatory or otherwise unscrupulous journal editors. Damien Kuffler, Ph.D. Professor

    Damien Kuffler, Ph.D. Professor Institute of Neurobiology Univ. of Puerto Rico 201 Blvd. del Valle San Juan, PR 00901 tel: 787-721-1235

    e-mail: dkuffler@hotmail.com

    Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:02:31 +0000 To: dkuffler@hotmail.com

  2. Juan Camilo Oviedo Lopera says:

    Good Afternoon:

    What do you think about this web open access?: https://www.ijntr.org/

    Thanks and I stay tuned to your answer.

    Ph.D. Juan C. Oviedo Lopera, Mg. I de A. | Docente-Investigador| Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana |

  3. Future Medicine is one of the Scientific Spammers that Adestra / MessageFocus refuses to ditch. SciSpam DNSBL recommends not dealing with spammers.

  4. The list with Editorial Board Members of the International Journal of Simulation Modelling mentions ‘Dr. Victor F. Nicola, Twente, Netherlands’. Twente ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twente ) is not the name of a city or a village in The Netherlands.
    .
    Twente University ( https://www.utwente.nl/en/contact/ ) is situated in a city called Enschede. The name of Dr. Nicola is not listed in http://webapps.utwente.nl/telefoongids/en/telgidsservlet
    .
    The researchgate profile of Dr Nicola ( https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Victor_Nicola ) lists many papers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246700529 lists Dr Nicola as “Visiting professor from the University of Twente, Nederlands”. This paper is dated ‘May 26, 2004’. A conference paper of Dr Nicola (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221143276 ) refers to a symposium held in the US in May 1983.

  5. Tell lie says:

    If this journal is published by a University of a major publisher or without fee, I think it is totally a good journal

  6. Sudesh Kumar says:

    Can you please see what this is:
    a journal names – DORIANA – very weird sounding name
    http://www.revistas-academicas.com/doriana/index.html

    AIM – aiming to promote and enhance research in all fields of sciences, including Art and humanities, engineering, medical sciences and basic and applied sciences.

    also if the first issue is still to be published, how come it is indexed in:
    Zoological Record (Thomson Reuters-ISI)
    * BIOSIS Previews (Thomson Reuters-ISI)
    * EMBASE, Ulrich, Compendex

    Archive is protected: http://www.revistas-academicas.com/doriana/archive.html
    Current issue is vol 48 in 2014 so it started publishing in 1966.
    http://www.revistas-academicas.com/doriana/current.php

  7. LF says:

    No offense meant but I think the arguments you’ve presented against this journal are weak.

    First three paragraphs don’t deal with the journal specifically. Fourth paragraph says EUR 690 is a high article processing charge, which it isn’t: in fact it is quite low. For comparison Elsevier usually charges in the vicinity of USD 3000 for open access, World Scientific charges around USD 1500, etc. EUR 690 is well on the low end.

    Fifth paragraph I don’t understand. Since the journal is delayed open access, of course for the first year only subscribers can access the articles. I don’t understand how that is indicative of low quality. The sixth paragraph claims that the DAAM lies about its location, which I agree is a hallmark of predatory publishers, but doesn’t offer any evidence.

    Then you write about the Editorial Board. I can agree that not having institutions is suspicious, but it’s by no means conclusive. I went ahead and Googled one of the names on the board, Vlatka Hlupic, and promptly found her university page: http://www.westminster.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/directory/hlupic-professor-vlatka. She is indeed based in London. I don’t see why this would be illegitimate.

    Next you write about the impact factor, which at 2.083 is fairly high, but didn’t dispute its legitimacy. There are plenty of reputable journals indexed by JCR, and I don’t see why this indicates the journal is low quality. Finally you write about the possibility of sponsorship, which is absolutely a good thing! If the journal finds revenue elsewhere, it’s able to keep its publication fees down and still turn a profit. It’s not like the journal is charging APCs of 3000+ USD while still selling sponsorship, so I again don’t view this badly.

    With no offense meant, I am unconvinced that this journal is low-quality or even borderline. It looks perfectly legitimate to me.

  8. Stan says:

    It seems like Mr. Beall has jumped the shark on this one. The journal may not be the most professionally-run outfit. Nevertheless, not only there’s exactly zero indication that it is predatory (in the article itself); it is not even open access! “Delayed” open access is not really open, now is it?
    On all appearances, this is your average journal on not-obscure but not exactly unduly broad topic, published by some guy from Eastern Europe. There are tons of subscription journals that are infinitely worse (especially outside of North America and Western Europe). Why pick on this one?

  9. TC says:

    Regarding its scientific credibility, according to the JCR 2014, it has a 26% of Self Cites to years used in impact factor calculation. In the same ISI category, IJPE (1/43) has 27%, CIRP ANNALS-MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY (2/43) has 23%, TECHNOVATION (3/43) has 29%, RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY (4/43) has 28%.

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: