Seattle Newspaper for the People by the People

Author

Admin - page 30

Admin has 356 articles published.

Watch Out for Publishers with “Nova” in Their Name

Corny name, corny publisher

Two unrelated publishers with the word “Nova” in their name have been bothering researchers with spam emails recently. One is an open-access publisher based in a dwelling in Ontario called Nova Explore Publications. The other one is an old book publisher called Nova Science Publishers, based in New York State. Researchers should avoid them both.

First, Nova Explore Publications.

This operation is a typical, small, one-man predatory publisher operation. It offers five broad journals, one of which, the Nova Journal of Sufism and Spirituality, covers a topic not normally treated by open-access publishers, so perhaps it’s a reflection of the owner’s background.

A spam email signed by “Dr. Rose Hill” (likely a fake name) lists the “advantages” for authors publishing with Nova Explore Publications:

Benefits to publish with NOVA:

1. Easy submission and fast evaluation process
2. Expert review who strive to give authors fair decisions and advice
3. The highest standards followed to improve accepted manuscripts

In other words, they will accept and publish just about anything, as long as the publishing fee is paid, which Nova Explore says is $75.

It lists its address as 67 Abitibi Avenue in Toronto. Here’s a picture of their headquarters, courtesy of Google Maps, and it’s really in North York:

Scholarly Publisher Headquarters.

Second: Nova Science Publishers.

If you haven’t already, you may receive a spam email from the company’s president, Nadya Gotsiridze-Columbus.

Their spam will invite you to edit a book with chapters contributed by your friends and colleagues, or it will invite you to contribute a chapter to such a volume.

Nova Science Publishers is not a predatory publisher, but it is a bottom-tier one, in my opinion. The Wikipedia article about the publisher gives additional information about it, but the article has been somewhat sanitized by the publisher’s supporters.

If you’re an assistant professor, I strongly recommend you resist the temptation to write for this publisher; it could be damaging to your career.

In conclusion, both of these Nova publishers are “no-goes.”

Appendix: List of Nova Explore Publications journals as of 2015-04-18:

Nova Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences (NJMBS)
Nova Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (NJHS)
Nova Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (NJEAS)
Nova Journal of Arabic Studies (NJAS)
Nova Journal of Sufism and Spirituality (NJSS)

*Visitor submitted article. The views, opinions, and/or reviews expressed are not necessarily the views of the Emerald City Journal. The Emerald City Journal is an non-commercial opinion based newspaper (that may include criticism) located in Seattle, Washington. This newspaper is for the People and by the People.

Editor-in-Chief of Clute “Institute” Journal Badmouths the DOI

Head in the clouds, head in the sand.

Most all high-quality scholarly publishers assign DOIs (digital object identifiers) to the articles and other digital objects they publish. These unique identifiers benefit scholarly authors by making their work more discoverable, accessible, and citable.

One Luddite publisher that refuses to use DOIs is the Clute Institute. In fact, one of the “Institute’s” editors-in-chief has even badmouthed the international standard.

Timothy F Slater, Ph.D. is a professor at the University of Wyoming and Editor-in-Chief of the Clute Institute’s Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education (JAESE).

Here’s what he said in the context of his journal not supplying DOIs:

One specific criticism of JAESE is that we currently do not use DOI numbers to specify permanent URLs for archived articles. The DOI system was created in the 1990s to solve the problem of unstable URLs when using Netscape and Mosaic to find online resources. Many publishers think that the DOI system has outlived the problem it was trying to solve, especially as membership in the DOI system is expensive for small publishers and, it seems to me, largely unnecessary these days. The Editorial Board is currently reconsidering DOIs, but members are understandably reluctant to pass more costs on to authors, if it is unnecessary.

Slater’s comment was posted to the Geoscience Education Research Interest Group email list hosted by Michigan State University on March 19, 2015. I don’t think Slater’s description is accurate.

DOI’s first started to appear in the 2000s, and they serve to provide unique and persistent identifiers for scholarly articles and other digital objects, identifiers that enable precise and unambiguous identification of scholarly works, along with many citation-based services.

What are they teaching here?

Also, I’ve never heard any publisher say anything even close to Slater’s silly claim that “Many publishers think that the DOI system has outlived the problem it was trying to solve …”.

It is shameful that such a statement would come from a professor of education. He may be confusing the DOI with PURLs.

I recommend that researchers stay away from the Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education. It charges both submission and publishing fees, and it does not assign DOIs to the articles it publishes, leaving its published authors at a disadvantage.

By: Jeffrey Beall
Follow on Twitter
Source: Scholarly Open Access

Comments:

Blazeyastic says:

May 8, 2015 at 4:44 PM

Jeff are you saying every journal with DOI are suitable for publication than those without it? Remember, there some of your listed predatory journals with DOI, thanks.

Jeffrey Beall says:

May 8, 2015 at 4:48 PM

No, I am not saying that.

Sudesh Kumar says:

May 9, 2015 at 2:30 AM

what Jeffrey is saying that the editor does not know what he is talking about…as the editor says “…especially as membership in the DOI system is expensive for small publishers…”
the charges for a small publisher comes to be about $500-800 per year. either the journal wants to save this amount using excuses or the journal is not earning enough to pay this amount…both of which are bad scenarios…

Robert says:

May 10, 2015 at 8:01 AM

CrossRef normally charges 280$ as an annual fee plus one dollar per paper for assigning doi. This fee is associated with small publishers. The fee is nothing compares with advantage people get. Another point is that the managers of some well known indexes such as Scopus only index journals with valid doi. In other words, if a publisher does not cooperate with CrossRef, it is getting difficult to receive valuable index. I believe escaping from DOI membership is a good sign of a predatory activity. This publisher probably knows sooner or later they will have to close their operations so they do not bother to get involved with doi operations.
However, many well known small OA publishers take advantage of doi system and scholars benefit from it.
I believe all Librarians must help scholars know more about the advantages of a journals with valid DOI. I am glad to see that when a publisher tries to receive Scopus index for its journals there is a link to keep track of (See http://suggestor.step.scopus.com/progressTracker). ISI index also provides a link to get the status of journals, but the link often does not give feedback. Here is the link:
http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/info/jrneval-status/
It seems that ISI people are very busy, disregard offering any feedback to scholars and I think within the next few years, Scimago index, which is based on Scopus will break the monopoly of ISI, completely and most universities around the world will depend only on Scimago index.

Robert says:

May 10, 2015 at 11:49 AM

CrossRef normally charges 280$ as an annual fee plus one dollar per paper for assigning doi. This fee is associated with small publishers. The fee is nothing compares with advantage people get. Another point is that the managers of some well known indexes such as Scopus only index journals with valid doi. In other words, if a publisher does not cooperate with CrossRef, it is getting difficult to receive valuable index. I believe escaping from DOI membership is a good sign of a predatory activity. This publisher probably knows sooner or later they will have to close their operations so they do not bother to get involved with doi operations.

David says:

May 10, 2015 at 3:44 PM

DOI has nothig to do with quality of a publication. It is not essential to assign DOIs to articles as it is a value added service. So don’t mix DOI assignment with quality of publication. If publishers don’t want to get registered with CrossRef…….it’s their choice…….Actually many people are working to support the corporate agenda…..Now see DOIs also become a corporate product…….These corporate people just want to fill their pockets………….by sucking our blood…….like bats……

Ken Lanfear says:

May 11, 2015 at 6:21 AM

Jeff, I feel not having a DOI may be a dumb choice, but it is not illegitimate and does not imply bad faith. The EIC is up front about this, so there’s no more deception than a journal that, say, chooses to publish only in paper.

You do your list a disservice by including a journal for this reason. There are plenty of genuine bad actors to worry about.

Jeffrey Beall says:

May 11, 2015 at 8:03 AM

Ken,
Nowhere in my blog post did I mention anything about deception, so I don’t understand why you are arguing against something I did not say or imply. Why are you putting words into my mouth? Moreover, you imply that I put Clute Institute on my list for a single reason, which is also untrue. I find your comment irresponsible and unfair.
Jeffrey Beall

Ken Lanfear says:

May 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM

Sorry, Jeff. I didn’t mean to imply you were alleging bad faith. However, “I recommend that researchers stay away from the Journal of …” seems a pretty harsh sentence for a journal just exercising its business judgement.

geocognition says:

May 11, 2015 at 11:50 AM

I am in the field this “journal” covers, and we need more reputable publication options. I am concerned that young scholars will mistakenly publish here, and their work will be tarnished.

The lack of DOI is troubling – papers will be lost to oblivion. Even more so is the concern I have that the journal is not actually peer-reviewed – although cryptic, it seems that the “advisory board” of the journal also serve as reviewers for papers. This is not legitimate peer-review.

Stephanie Slater says:

May 18, 2015 at 3:48 PM

Upon reflection, this conversation seems a bit too removed from reality, and it might be helpful to bring it back to earth. …. It should be noted that there are real people who have published their work in some of these journals, and that should factor into the equation here. We are not talking about the work of faceless minions. When you besmirch the reputation of a journal, you are by extension, casting shadow on the scholarly work published therein, and to a certain extent, questioning the value of the work these individuals have done. That should be done with more care than is being demonstrated here… In the case of JAESE, the journal has taken on the specific mission of creating a publishing space for those who are traditionally marginalized in the patriarchal academic system. The first four articles were all written by American women, who have their PhDs from American institutions. In the case of three of the articles, these works are the publications of their dissertations, and represent over a decade of research overseen by well-respected scholars in their fields. In the case of the fourth paper, I am the author. My published article is a piece of research that I saved back for the specific purpose of starting this journal off on a strong foot. It is a description of the development of a research instrument that has been used in over 20 studies in the US, including four dissertations, conducted at R1, American universities under the supervision of well-respected scholars…. The fifth piece is a retrospective written by a very-well respected astronomy educator in the United States, who himself served as the editor of a journal for over a decade. …. The editor of JAESE is a full-professor, an Endowed Chair of Excellence in Science Education, has won an extraordinary number of awards in his field, who has graduated more PhDs in his field than any other person in its history….so it’s possible that he knows a thing or two about what constitutes real research in his field. … And the Editorial Board is really quite amazing. ….None of those features of this journal have been discussed in determining whether or not the journal is legitimate, which is quite disturbing. …. Before labeling a journal as predatory or a scam, it seems that reading the journal, contacting the editor, or authors, or members of the editorial board, are the minimum acts of due diligence. … Without taking such measures, it seems that negatively labeling the journal is an act taken to silence the respected voices who have chosen to publish there, which in this case could very easily be read as sexism in the academic workplace. I’m not sure what else one would call such unsubstantiated slander against a journal that purposefully chose to feature four, solo female scholars. ….Until such time as Mr. Beall conducts due diligence, academic integrity would demand that he retract the statements that he has made regarding the quality of this journal, of its board, it’s editor, and the work published by its authors.

Concerned Commentator says:

July 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM

Do you think it matters that you are married to the editor of the journal under which you were published? Do you think it matters that you two have a financial arrangement with the publishers? Are you willing to disclose what that arrangement is since the authors are charged page fees? How much money will you and your husband make from running this journal?

Anirud says:

March 28, 2016 at 10:27 AM

Came to this late but I find it a little puzzling how doctoral theses works were published here ( see Stephanie Slater comment above). Clearly, ppl want it in an A or B. If not of that quality, generally such theses are not seen as worth the paper. If JAESE were really of B or higher standing, it would not need such vigorous, spirited defence, would it? And not many buy into this patriarchal claptrap any longer. It is just another excuse. That said, DOI or payment alone should not be the criterion for blacklisting. In the case of Clute, I think there are more indicators than that, making it look highly questionable.

Can Romulans ever live together with Vulcans? – The case for a one state solution

Star Trek Convention Seattle

Since time immemorial there have been two races of beings living almost identical lives yet they have been kept apart by their ideological differences. It’s hard to say who among them was the first as in all honesty they both have existed on the same parcel of land, at times in peace, and at times in conflict since long before recorded time began. They share the same great grandfather, inspired by the creator himself, to look beyond the confines of the sun and the moon and see the true driving force behind life. They share the same culture and food, the same music, and the same undying belief in the Oneness of Creation.

They share a common language, although each has adapted their own dialect. Their dialects are based on the same root words and the same basic meanings. Their common moral, ethical, and social code is ingrained in cultures fair beyond their reach, indeed their ancestry provided the basis for many kingdoms among the heavens.

Hospitality, Loyalty, Honor, and Trust form the basis of their common code of ethics. At times it is hard to tell them apart because they share so many things in common. They look the same. Both races share the same hot blood, pulsing through their veins; although, one race has learned to cool their raw emotions and tempered them with logic and reason. Push either race, and you will quickly see their natural preconditioned being shine through, both the good and the bad of it. Each has a raw temper buried deep in their hot blood. Both use the teaching of their common father to mask an almost animal like instinct for conflict, money lust, and the desire for carnal pleasures. But do not be deceived, they are not flawed, because all life forms deal with the same basic vices. In essence they are perfect cousins trapped behind walls of division.

Since they both share a common ancestry it is moronic to believe that one should leave their homeland and allow the other to stay. It is impossible to envision a scenario where one race leaves to colonize another world because either race would necessarily leave behind all that makes them who they are. They would lose their base, their common culture, their common familial history. When Vulcans were exiled from their homes and their world was blown to pieces they did not loose their divine birth right. At the same time, while Romulans toiled the land and inhabited places far from that of their common father, they did not forfeit their biological claim to the Promised Land- some may argue that they never truly left the common home at all. Both hold valid dueling claims to a history and a place that neither can deny. So why can’t they share their rich history, their rich culture, and be proud of their common ancestry. Why can’t they live side by side seamlessly basking in the light of the creator. Is it possible that the reasoning of “good neighbors need strong fences” is illogical? Could a race of life forms that are prone to war and blood feuds, brought on under the banner of the raptor, be able to abandon the old ways for the chance at a better life?

After all with so much in common why not celebrate the common core in both races of life forms. Why not come to a compact whereby Vulcans give up their absolute claim to the family land, and the Romulans give up their anger over suffering another kind of Diaspora, so that the son’s of their common father can live together as one. It sounds so easy when we are talking about an imaginary world born of Gene Rodenberry’s mind. I think it may be as simple as the realizing that- “koolana shab wahad”,” todos somos un solo pueblo” or to put it in other terms – “kulna chab ekhad”, “we are all one people.”

It’s funny how Hollywood and Sci-Fi can mimic the news and real life.

Author: Tark Aouadi
“The piece above that I wrote which some have said speaks to the Arab Israeli Conflict, some have said speaks to our own countries immigration problems, or our fragile relations with Cuba or the need to include Puerto Rico as an official state of the USA. I guess it means different things to different groups of people.”

Events coming to Seattle, Washington:

  • July 31 – Aug. 2, 2015, Galacon, Seattle Center
  • March 18 – 20th 2016, Supernatural Official Convention, Hyatt Regency – Bellevue
  • April 7 – 10th, 2016, Emerald City Comicon, Washington State Convention Center

Mexican OA Journal Demands a “Mordida” from Authors Submitting Manuscripts

Cultivating money.

The journal Agrociencia, published by the Colegio de Postgraduados in Mexico, demands that submitting authors subscribe to the journal before their submissions will be considered for peer-review. A subscription costs $160, and there are additional fees once the paper is accepted.

These hidden fees, resembling a type of mordida, are not mentioned in the author guidelines. The text below is copied from an email sent by Agrociencia in response to a prospective author’s inquiry:

“Time for publication: 8-10 months, depending upon writing in fluent English and scientific value of the manuscript.

Articles are published only in English and Spanish.

After an official reception letter is issued and in order to start the peer-review process, the corresponding author must pay a one-time annual subscription to Agrociencia (US$ 160.00); this payment does not imply that the manuscript will be published.

If the manuscript is approved for publication, the corresponding author must pay the translation (US$ 200-300) from English into Spanish, directly to a translator assigned by Agrociencia.”

The journal’s website states that subscriptions cost $150, not $160. Also, the journal is open-access, so subscriptions are not needed to access the published content.

Colegio de cobros ocultos.

As indicated, the journal also requires submitting authors to fund a translation of the article, an additional $200-$300 cost.

The journal is also called Revista Agrociencia. The mandatory subscription and translation charges are non-standard in scholarly publishing and perhaps unethical. The journal needs to be more transparent about the fees it imposes on its authors.

Researchers in the agricultural sciences submitting papers to this journal will be taking a risk; there may be additional charges beyond those mentioned here. For authors considering submitting here, I recommend finding a better journal.

The journal has an impact factor of 0.049 according to Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports.

Hat tip: Dr. Jaime Teixeira da Silva

By: Jeffrey Beall
Follow on Twitter
Source: Scholarly Open Access

Comments:

Keith Fraser says:

April 21, 2015 at 9:13 AM

Publication time 8-10 months? That seems terribly long to me, on top of all the fee unpleasantness.

Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic) says:

April 21, 2015 at 9:40 AM

“The journal has an impact factor of 0.049 according to Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports.”

Statistically significant!

shirley ainsworth says:

April 21, 2015 at 10:55 AM

Although seen from another angle an APC of $150 plus a complimentary print subscription is hardly outrageous, and also the equivalent of ‘society members’ (academics and students from the Colegio de Posgraduados) do receive a discount on this price.
I understand this policy has been in force for Agrociencia since 1997, and it is unusual for a Latin American journal to charge for publishing there. They are usually free to publish in and free to access.

The conditions should be mentioned clearly in the author instructions, I quite agree.

Rodrigo Paredes says:

April 21, 2015 at 12:51 PM

This is not an article processing charge. In my experience, APCs are only charged after acceptance. Here “this payment does not imply that the manuscript will be published.” I do not know of any other Journal that charges the complete fee regardless of acceptance (maybe they’re a few, but it is very uncommon and does seem risky for authors.)

Mike Fainzilber says:

April 22, 2015 at 12:49 PM

Jeff – I have no idea about this specific journal, but fees for submission of a manuscript are charged by other reputable journals published by large scholarly societies. For example the Journal of Neuroscience charges $ 130 for submission, regardless of the eventual fate of the manuscript, and this is separate from publication fees charged if the manuscript is accepted for publication- see http://www.jneurosci.org/site/misc/ifa_fee.xhtml

Jeffrey Beall says:

April 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM

Agreed, but the point I was trying to make is that the fees are not mentioned on the website. Authors find out about them the hard way, after they’ve submitted a paper.

Reinaldo Pire says:

May 1, 2015 at 10:33 AM

Dear Prof. Beall, it is clear that your comment was dealing with fees that were not mentioned on the website of the journal. However, you used the term “mordida”, a word that may be considered offensive for Spanish speaking people.
I believe that this unusual word in scientific communication triggered several opinions from readers who added more attacks to the journal.
Moreover, I visited the journal website and observed that the charges are mentioned on its main page.
Knowing that you are a fair scientific critic, I think a clarification would be needed

Jeffrey Beall says:

May 1, 2015 at 11:33 AM

You are late to the party. The charges were not stated previously. My use of the term was appropriate and reflected only the offensiveness of the hidden and exploitative charges.

Sergio González says:

May 7, 2015 at 1:18 PM

On April 21, Mr. A. Teixeira da Silva uploaded on the Scholarly Open Access site, a libel pointing out that Revista Agrociencia charges “MORDIDAS” (sic) for publishing articles. Although we knew about the apparent anger of Mr. Teixeira da Silva, we did not answer because his statements are worthless and uncalled for and, most probably, no reply is needed. However, some outstanding members of the national and international scientific community have let us know their disagreement and anger about the libelous statement published by Mr. Teixeira da Silva. Therefore, we feel an answer is called for.

First, we will show some relevant information about Agrociencia. In 2016, the journal will reach 50 years of publishing, and it is successfully consolidated with about 400 reviewers from 12 Ibero-American countries. Two reviewers and one editor evaluate each manuscript, and they will approve or reject it. Every year, about 100 articles are published according to the Guidelines, which are in effect since 2004; thus, about 1000 have already been published and none of the authors have complained about subscription fees or payment to translators.

Mr. Teixeira da Silva pointed out just one true statement: Agrociencia is an open journal, its access is free in the Internet, and no subscription is required in order to read, copy or print any article. Thus, the only purpose of requiring a subscription is to help paying some of the publication costs of the journal. If an author declares that he cannot pay the subscription, due to lack of funds or not being able to obtain support from his country, this requirement is forfeited. Please, take into account that the one time annual subscription requirement is included in the Authors Guide and in a letter sent to the Corresponding Author. Hence, Mr. Teixeira lies again.

But we do declare ourselves guilty of not being able to find excellent translators who do not demand payment for his work. Since translators are not employees of the Colegio de Postgraduados, neither of the Editorial or Agrociencia, every payment for translating a manuscript is a direct agreement between the Corresponding Author and the translator.

Finally, we strongly point out that no further words or efforts will be wasted about this trivial incident, which stem from faulty judgment or wicked intentions from Mr. Teixera da Silva. A final comment: as is often the case, Mr. Teixeira writing in English is very poor. That is why professional translators are required. The rest is silence.

El Editor General del Colegio de Postgraduados
Said Infante Gil

El Director de Agrociencia
Sergio S. González Muñoz

Hired Nomad: When Traveling is Your Job

I was lucky enough to have traveling parents as a child, parents who loved to see the world, no matter the cost. They took me to Seattle, England, to France, and to Japan, at an age when I was only beginning to appreciate these experiences. These travels made an impact on my life and made me choose travel – this meant interning at travel companies, writing about travel as much as I could, and spending much of my own free time and money moving around when it could have been spent elsewhere. I knew from a young age that traveling was something I had to do, always, forever, no matter what.

Since then, working at Lowfares and the more minor companies before it has been extremely rewarding. I have been to Singapore, China, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Canada, most of Europe, and deep into Brazil, whether to do travel writing, meet and discuss particulars with potential and current clients, or to go on vacation. Luckily, when I did much of my travels to other countries, I was able to write it off or use my industry connections to get discounts.

Despite this, being a travel professional isn’t always bright smiles and great experiences.

A constant, lingering loneliness can often carry with you on the road. You miss your family your friends, and even when you consider yourself a social butterfly, there is a definite disconnect from society when you approach a new friend with “Hello” and they respond with “Nee-hao!”.

My job as a travel professional has fluctuated, but through most of it, I have been a writer.

Unfortunately, this can accentuate the loneliness. When your predicament is great, you spend your time at home next to your kids, reflecting on what you’ve visited. When it’s good, you spend your time looking out at something beautiful you’ve never seen, typing. When it isn’t, you’re stuck in a dirty, mucky room with one English channel and no pictures, pounding on a laptop without an internet connection. Sometimes, this is for the best, as it can help you best reflect the murky reality of the slums of India, China and elsewhere. However, what sometimes makes for great writing also makes for an extremely depressed human being.

Takeoff is still nerve-racking, even after the 3,000th liftoff. No matter how much Superman says flying is still the safest way to travel, I don’t believe him. I’ve been through enough roller coaster flights and ridden with enough brain-dead pilots to believe otherwise.

I’ve realized that with travel, as it applies with everything, you can burn out. Travel 120 out of 160 days and you begin to wish that you didn’t have to do it so often, even if you love it. Travel is seen as a great thing because it is different, and it is different because we never do it. We have fun on Friday and Saturday nights most especially because it is such an infrequent event. If we had to drink every day for a week straight, you would most look forward to not doing the thing you loved doing so much.

But, just like that, when you take a break from the week straight of partying, you long for it again. I love travel, I just hate too much of it. The thing with being a travel professional is that sometimes you get too much.

Luckily, as I have moved onto Lowfares.com, my travel schedule has diminished and I have once again begun to enjoy waiting for baggage claim and experiencing two days of jet lag.

Really, the best bet for a travel professional is to choose your employer wisely – unfortunately, due to the high demand and small job market, few will have that luxury. Your best bet is to put in the work, become reputable, or just plain get lucky, and you will enjoy all the pluses – and so few of the minuses that come with traveling for a living.

Ross Garnaut

Recent Comments

By Alan: Ross–couldn’t agree more with this post. I travel 5-6 months out of the year for my job, and as exotic as Turkmenistan, Syria, and Djibouti might sound to friends and family, you’re right, the nature of the situation can get a little fatiguing at times.

I think another problem that many business travelers have, especially when jettisoning to international locations, is staying motivated. After a long day of work traipsing around the city, I sometimes struggle between the comfortable confines of the hotel and doing some leisure exploring. You’re right, sometimes we can get “too much travel,” but if there’s one thing I’m certain of, it’s that the itch, even though it’s being scratched frequently these days, will never go away 🙂

By Audrey: Although our travel/work situation is a bit different, there are certainly some similarities with what Ross wrote. I can certainly relate to trying to write an article or finish up photography editing in a dingy room with low light and a floor you’re afraid to touch with bare feet.

Anything you do too much of becomes tiring and can be a burden, even if that “thing” is usually a wonderful thing. We take breaks from regular travel – find a place to set up for a couple of weeks where we don’t do touristy things and just focus on work all day. This is necessary for projects (trying to fit in writing at the end of a day of hiking usually doesn’t work too well), but also for our sanity: to have some sense of stability for a period during our usually hectic schedule.

Other travelers often look at us as if we’re crazy – why come to Ecuador to work on your laptop all day? Sometimes they understand when we explain our work/travel situation; other times they don’t. Our lifestyle is not for everyone, just as many of theirs is not for us.

By Marina: It’s funny, before having my family, I always thought of having a job that takes you traveling all over the world. But you’re right, it’s lonely! It’s so nice to travel for the joy, rather than the work!

Now that travel is becoming part of my work, so that I can keep up with the destinations that I’m promoting, I always do it with my family. I don’t get paid for it directly, but from knowing the locations I’m visiting I’m capable of selling them better. However, I don’t know if I’d want it to be mandatory.

And I am sooooooooooooo with you! Air travel scares the sh*t out of me and I’ve put tons of air miles under my belt, and it just doesn’t ever get easier.

Thanks for this honest post. I think more people need to read the realities of life on the road for work!

By Angela: I understand where you come from, I travel a lot, but especially I don’t only visit a place, I settle for a couple of years. It’s weird, sometimes I feel unsettled and think I should stop somewhere and nevertheless I’m not able to decide to stop. I know where I want to live when I’ll stop, but it’s just not the time yet, so I live with a suitcase (two, actually), I stay two years, I make friends, I absorb the society hosting me for that time and then, once I get used to it, I leave.

I may feel lonely sometimes, but I socialize very quickly (thank god!) and I also like spending time by myself. Despite all this, I understand what you mean with your hating “too much travel”, and sometimes I wish I didn’t have such nomadic attitude!

By John Bardos: Frequent travel would be great for a year or two, but if you are traveling alone and staying only a short time in each destination, it would become too much. I guess even dream jobs get boring after a while.

By Kaitlin: Your right on the mark there Ross, travelling even though it seems like it should be different, is just like everything else.
Do it too much and no matter how much you love it, you just can’t help but want to stop and do anything else, even for a moment.
I get that way about writing a lot of the time, you know it’s great – you wouldn’t want to do anything else – but if I have to look at that blank screen one more time.
Thanks for the great post.

The Importance of the Bair Hugger in the Operating

Staying Warm During Surgery With Bair Hugger

The Bair Hugger forced air warming system is an amazing product and a remarkable invention. Most people who have had surgery have heard of the product before but have no idea what the history is behind this amazing invention nor do they understand the importance behind the device. People just know that the Bair Hugger is the key to a successful surgery and shortens the recovery time post surgery. This hospital and operating room staple has been a trusted asset and has warmed over 130 million patients worldwide. So what is the story behind on of the most dependable medical inventions? How did it become so essential in the surgical room and why do doctors and hospitals trust it unquestionably? It is important to understand how an operating room works in understand the importance of the Bair Hugger.

Get the facts: http://www.fawfacts.com

Before 1987, there was a myriad of issues that faced people in the operating room before the invention of the Bair Hugger. The main issue that a majority of surgical patients faced was getting hypothermia in the operating room. Hypothermia is when the body loses heat faster than it can produce it. It can occur anytime after the body temperature passes below 95 degrees Fahrenheit or 35 degrees Celsius. It is defined as a medical emergency and when your body temperature drops your heart, nervous system and other organs are unable to function properly. Hypothermia conjures up visions of the outdoors, freezing water and snow. Even though an operating room is not considered a cold, harsh environment, it can be for some patients. Operating rooms are kept below 73.4 degrees Fahrenheit so below the normal body temperature. The cold operating room is the single biggest reason why there is a risk of hypothermia in the operating room. The cold room isn’t the only reason why patients can suffer from hypothermia.

The operating room must be kept at a lower temperature to help keep the operating personnel comfortable. If the operating room is too warm then the personnel can become uncomfortable. They have to wear multiple layers of clothing that can include sterile gowns and lead aprons. All these layers of clothing combined with a high-level of stress can cause the surgeons to sweat. Sweat doesn’t seem like a big deal but if the OR personnel are not careful, they could potentially sweat into the patient’s open surgical incision which could cause an infection. Also, the room must be kept cold to help prevent humidity from building up in the room. The condensation can also cause serious risks to the patient. The moisture can build up to the point where it almost “rains” and it can contaminate the sterile operating environment. As the moisture moves along the surface of the operating room it can pick up bacteria. This condensation can also potentially fall into the open surgical incision causing a serious infection. Keeping the operating room a lower temperature also helps slow the growth of bacteria viruses and other organisms.

Patients can get hypothermia for other reasons besides a cold operating room. The longer a person must undergo a surgery, the more likely they are to get hypothermia. Patients are not clothed during surgery so the longer the surgery; the longer their body will be exposed to the cold in the operating room. The drugs that are used for the surgery also can cause issues with the body’s thermoregulatory control system. The IV fluid is usually cold and can decrease the body temperature. Anyone that has had an IV drip can testify to the fact that the fluid is cold going in the body. Certain anesthetic drugs can also cause the body temperature to drop. A majority of patients become hypothermic during the first hour of surgery. Some patients are able to return to a normal temperature post surgery. However, some patients are unable to regulate their body temperature without assistance from a warming device. These issue force the need for air warming system.

Hypothermia does not affect every single patient undergoing surgery. There are certain patients who are more susceptible to hypothermia than others. Elderly patients are more susceptible to hypothermia. As we age, our bodies are not able to regulate temperature very well and our ability to sense cold lessens with age. People suffering from hypothyroidism, stroke, severe arthritis, Parkinson’s and neuropathies are all more likely to become hypothermic during surgery. These two different groups of people are typically more dehydrated and malnourished than the general population which factors into their susceptibility to hypothermia. Certain medications like antipsychotics and sedatives can also impair the body’s ability to return to a normal temperature.

There are several complications and even the possible risk of death when the body reaches hypothermic levels. Intraoperative core hypothermia can cause coagulopathy, surgical wound infection, and possibly myocardial complications, which are all very serious problems. Patients are three times more likely to suffer from cardiac complications and surgical site infections. Surgical site infections are caused when the bacteria enters the wound and causes an infection. There is also a higher risk of developing pressure ulcers. Hypothermia causes the blood vessels to constrict and cause decreased blood flow to tissues and can create favorable conditions for bacteria to grow.

The solution to this common problem is the Bair Hugger. It’s a complicated process how it works. This forced air warming system helps to maintain the body’s temperature during surgery. A plastic, disposable blanket is placed over the patient’s body and warm air is circulated through the blanket. The warm air circulating in the blanket helps to keep the patient warm. The first hour of surgery is very critical and the Bair Hugger is the best way to help prevent hypothermia during that precarious time. For over 25 years, the Bair Hugger has warmed over 50,000 patients a day in over 80 percent of the hospitals nationwide. There have been over 170 studies conducted on the safety of the Bair Hugger and each study has confirmed what hospitals and doctors already agree on, the Bair Hugger is a very crucial asset in the operating room.

Helpdesks Need Integration and Automation

Seattle Helpdesk Help Photo

For many businesses, the IT helpdesk is a relic of the past, sitting alone as a detached afterthought. A reactive facility, the helpdesk implies negative connotations although its function is essential to the running of a business’ IT. However, integrating a helpdesk with an entire IT network infrastructure and automating its functionality can reduce costs and increase shared knowledge. Having been involved with so many Seattle startups, I know is area very well and it’s often neglected.

Unfortunately, helpdesks are often regarded as a fire-fighting tool. More often than not they are bolted-on as a late addition designed to cope with the rising number of user queries. It is rare for an integrated helpdesk solution to be implemented from the outset, so there are tools should be available to assist with integration issues. Helpdesks should not be viewed as a point solution; but rather part of asset and systems management procedures.

Helpdesk service can be improved dramatically by integration with a centralized asset management database. IT helpdesk calls are usually directly related to hardware or software, therefore the knowledge of assets can be leveraged to improve problem resolution. Using a centralized database, helpdesk queries can be matched up directly to assets. Problem users and assets can be identified and the total cost of ownership (TCO) per asset can be calculated. Assets with a high problem incidence rate should be pinpointed and targeted to discover reasons for high TCO.

Asset management and helpdesk integration can enable automation of helpdesks. Day-to-day management tasks and repetitive functions should be automated, turning fire-fighting helpdesks into hands-off self-help solutions to problems. Integrating these processes would make it possible for users’ helpdesk tickets to have contextual keyword filters applied to trigger an automatic response.

For example, if an end-user needed a software application but did not have it installed on their PC, they would make a request to the helpdesk for it to be installed. A contextual keyword filter would automatically identify the request and, using the centralized database, could check the PC’s software inventory, licensing status and configuration. If suitable, an automated helpdesk could trigger the asset management system to automatically distribute the correct executable software package to the PC. The helpdesk staff need not get involved and the process would be instant and one of self-help – saving time and money.

My top three top tips for future helpdesk success are: integrate helpdesk function with asset and systems management tools to identify TCO; turn a helpdesk problem into a self-help solution through automation; stop firefighting and use a structured solution. With thorough back-end integration and given a regular structure to work in, helpdesks can evolve from being a reaction to problems, to an automated central knowledge base to assist with business process intelligence.

If you’re a startup is in the City of Seattle, I highly recommend looking into making sure you helpdesk procedures are in place to help your business really succeed.

Higher Education Forum: 95% Vacation, 5% Scholarly Conference

No research here.

In a recent blog post, I wrote about the Taiwan-based Higher Education Forum — essentially a travel agency that organizes vacation-like conferences marketed to academics in Asia. In this post, I would like to expand on why I think attending Higher Education Forum (HEF) conferences is a poor choice for honest researchers.

Here are the reasons I think that researchers should avoid Higher Education Forum conferences and why universities should not pay for their faculty to attend Higher Education Forum conferences

1. HEF is a for-profit company whose mission is to increase profits for its owners. On the other hand, conferences organized by authentic, non-profit scholarly societies and associations have as their chief mission the creation and sharing of new knowledge. Honest researchers should prefer conferences organized by legitimate academic and scholarly societies and associations.

2. Higher Education Forum conferences generally combine two (or more) broad fields. They do this to make the conferences appeal to more researchers, to maximize their revenue. Here are some examples:

International Conference on Education, Psychology and Society
International Conference on Social Science and Psychology
Global Conference on Engineering and Applied Science
International Symposium on Engineering and Natural Sciences
International Conference on Life Science and Biological Engineering

3. Note that all of HEF’s conferences use the terms “International” or “Global.” This strategy helps attract more registrations and enables presenters to earn more academic credit (an international conference presentation garners more credit than a national or regional one).

4. To maximize profits, HEF often holds two or more conferences at the same time and at the same hotel

5. HEF associates with predatory publishers and works to funnel conference attendees’ papers into the low quality journals they publish. On the HEF website, it says, “All full papers presented in the conference will be considered for possible publications as follow [sic].” Then it provides links to publishers in India, Nigeria, and China that appear on my list of predatory publishers.

6. Higher Education Forum does not take criticism well. After my last blog post, HEF’s public relations manager, Chelsea Kao, sent out numerous emails, each one labeled as a “press release” attacking me and defending the company. Her numerous press releases cited the impact factors of all the journals that HEF associates with, but the impact factors were all assigned by fake impact factor companies, so the silly press releases, which were sent to various University of Colorado officials, confirmed that HEF associates with predatory publishers.

No research here, either.

7. For conference presentations, there is a very short time between the submission deadline and the “notification of acceptance,” leading one to conclude that no real review is completed on the submissions, and they are most all accepted so the conference can make more money. Also, the deadlines invariably get extended. There’s no mention of any peer-review.

The “deadline” is whenever you want. [From The International Conference on Education, Psychology and Society, http://www.icepas.org/ ]

8. HEF conference registration is not cheap; it costs $400 to attend for those presenting papers. According to the website for one of their conferences:

“The calculation of registration fee is according to the piece of manuscript submitted by the author. For instance, if you only have one paper to submit, you will have to pay 400*1=400 USD. However, if you would like to submit three research papers, you will have to pay up to 400*3=1200 USD.”

They also charge a processing fee for those using PayPal, and they do not grant refunds for any reason.

Higher Education Forum organizes vacation packages and markets them as scholarly conferences. The firm associates with predatory publishers and encourages conference attendees to submit their papers to these publishers’ journals, where they are easily and quickly published upon payment of additional fees paid by the authors.

I recommend that scholars only attend scholarly conferences organized by authentic scholarly organizations. I recommend that universities not sponsor faculty attendance at conferences that are essentially vacations, like those given by Higher Education Forum.

By: Jeffrey Beall
Follow on Twitter
Source: Scholarly Open Access

Comments:

Ken Lanfear says:

March 13, 2015 at 7:50 AM

Jeff, I see “vacation conferences” as a far less serious threat than predatory journals. Even legitimate conference planners know it’s easier to attract folks to nice places, at least within reason. Since it’s often not a clear-cut situation, trying to restrict travel could cause more problems than it would solve.

Conference proceedings papers usually count far less than journal papers for tenure and advancement. Someone looking to promote fake science would get more bang for the buck paying a predatory journal.

The problem of predatory journals is very real and threatens the credibility of our science. I think “vacation conferences” are largely a problem between employees, employers, and the tax collectors.

AlexH says:

March 13, 2015 at 11:14 PM

Conferences are all about networking and are not a tool of fattening our list of publications. With the exception of a few fast-evolving fields like computer science, proceedings publications (even those that are published as a special issue of a scholarly journal) count very little for promotion or grant committees. However -and this is the part where I must disagree with Ken-, fake conference proceedings pollutes scientific literature the same way as predatory journals does as they often give space to sub-par or even pseudoscience and grant an opportunity for citation manipulation. IMHO they are a very real threat to science even though misled or unethical authors are not able to profit from them as much as from predatory journal articles.

Julius Jillbert aka JJ (Julius Jilbert) says:

April 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM

Thanks again Jeffrey for this useful information. Would share this as a remainder for others academe.

Peter Kutschera says:

July 5, 2015 at 5:28 PM

While I respect the overall mission of SOA and its estimable proprietor Dr. Jeffrey Beall, I was somewhat taken aback by this article’s “over the top” headline: “Higher Education Forum: 95% Vacation, 5% Scholarly.” That plus the piece’s rather cursory examination of… OMG… a “for-profit” company – one that in my humble opine is also providing an invaluable academic service and research conference paper exposure opportunity in a very, very vital part of the world. This is especially so for young and aspiring researchers and even older seasoned academics . The many who often find themselves shut out from having their hard work recognized. Or, those who become unfairly burdened by receiving yet another rejection slip from the exclusive and short number of establishment, super highly competitive, sometimes subjectively challenged and occasionally clubby brick and mortar journals SOA recommends as one of the only real alternatives. I am a proud participant, presenter and moderator at a number of HEF conferences in East/Southeast Asia and in Taiwan- the Republic of China, and have encountered many intensely motivated, serious, hard working professional researchers, often in the prime of their careers, who have left me highly impressed with their accomplishments and resolve to contribute mightily to the literature. These conference participants are equally as impressive as the many I’ve also met @ the research association conferences SOA also rightfully recommends. In the interests of improving its value to readers I wish your article and inquiry might have been more “balanced,” and rather less “prosecutorial” in its approach and tone. Unfortunately the incandescent headline and a chunk of content is unfair and not adequately vetted. The article’s basic premise that HEF is a “travel agency” is provocative and gratuitous. How many research and professional conferences stateside conducted by responsible universities and colleges are held routinely at such “travel” destinations as Las Vegas, Miami, Myrtle Beach, New Orleans, St. Petersburg-Tampa, Charleston, SC, Seattle, San Diego or San Juan, PR? Usually I would imagine 95% of attendees at these events are there to make a contribution and that’s what I believe you would encounter attending a HEF conference

Jeffrey Beall says:

July 5, 2015 at 6:00 PM

I stand by my criticism of HEF and recommend that honest researchers not waste their money (or their university’s money) and time attending its vaconferences. Your arguments are fallacious and you should reveal that HEF pays you to give your boring “keynote” talks at some of its almost weekly-held conferences. Evidence shows that this firm has contractual agreements with predatory journals in South Asia and West Africa, journals that use fake impact factors and do little or no peer review, accepting everything submitted. Publishing in such journals could be extremely damaging to the careers of young academics. The ridiculous PR person for HEF sent numerous “press releases” to my university chancellor (apparently she doesn’t know how to do any normal type of correspondence) and her statements revealed that the company is completely clueless about fake impact factors, fake peer review, and predatory publishers. Your comments about attendees of conferences here in the U.S. are unwarranted. Stop trying to play the attendees of different conferences off of each other. This is about HEF and only HEF. It’s a low-quality and questionable conference organizer, and the fact that they hire you as a keynote speaker provides strong evidence for this.

Bogus Iran-Based Journal Allows Up to 40% Plagiarism

Journal of Current Research in Science
Journal of unoriginal content.

The Journal of Current Research in Science (JCRS) is included on my list of questionable journals, and I strongly advise all honest researchers to avoid it. It allows up to 40% plagiarism in its articles and proclaims several completely fake impact factors. Surprisingly, a new scholarly index from a reputable firm has made the decision to include this journal in its coverage.

High Tolerance for Plagiarism

A prominent note at the top of the journal’s website says:
“JCRS is following an instant policy on rejection those received papers with plagiarism rate of more than 40%.”

You can publish a paper with up to 40% plagiarism in this Journal.

This means the journal will accept and publish papers with up to 40% unoriginal content, a highly-questionable practice that violates established scholarly publishing ethical norms.

Fake Impact Factors

The journal also displays false impact factors to make itself look more legitimate. It has made-up numbers from Global Impact Factor and Universal Impact Factor. These are counterfeit impact factor companies that sell their contrived metrics to predatory journals, metrics the journals use to attract papers.

Fake metrics, with values that increase each year.

Emerging Sources Citation Index
A dirty database?

The journal prominently displays the logo of the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), a new database from Thomson Reuters — the same company that calculates impact factors. I verified that the journal is included in this index.

ESCI is an attempt by Thomson Reuters to better compete with Scopus, which has a much broader coverage than Web of Science, Thomson Reuters’ main index.

If Emerging Sources Citation Index is including journals like the Journal of Current Research in Science — with its fake impact factors and high tolerance for plagiarism — then ESCI will have little value and will gain a reputation as a dirty database.

Non-Scientific Content

I also note the presence of out-of-scope content in the Journal of Current Research in Science, including, for example, the article “The Ratio of Islamic philosophy and religious thought.”

The article does not fall into the journal’s stated scope (current research in science) at all. Moreover, it, along with the journal’s other articles, has not been copyedited and contains numerous errors, such as “lunarcolander” instead of “lunar calendar.”

Conclusion

If this journal fits into Thomson Reuters’ idea of “emerging sources,” then I question the company’s competence in evaluating open-access journals. The journal misleads researchers with fake impact factors and permits a high level of plagiarism in its published articles.

Hat tip: Janusz Mierczynski

By: Jeffrey Beall
Follow on Twitter
Source: Scholarly Open Access

Anti-Roundup (Glyphosate) Researchers Use Easy OA Journals to Spread their Views

Toxic journal.

I’ve added the journal Interdisciplinary Toxicology (interTOX) to my list. The journal is associated with the Slovak Toxicology Society (SETOX).

In my opinion the journal is not aimed at communicating science but instead aims to promote a political agenda, namely that most manufactured chemicals cause harm to humans.

The journal’s editor-in-chief is Michal Dubovický. According to Dr. Paul Strode, author of the blog Mr. Dr. Science Teacher:

Dubovický has 53 career publications according to the Web of Science. Since June of 2008, when Interdisciplinary Toxicology was launched, he has published 27 times. Two of those publications were editorials in Interdisciplinary Toxicology and 10 were full length papers in the journal. So, 40% of Dubovický’s publications over the last six-and-a-half years are in his own journal!

The journal was brought to my attention recently because of a 2013 article it published co-authored by MIT’s anti-Roundup crusader Stephanie Seneff. The article was “Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance,” and it appeared in volume 6, number 4 of the journal in 2013.

According to Dr. Strode:

Stephanie Seneff is a 65-yr-old computer scientist in the Department of Artificial Intelligence at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Like [her co-author] Samsel, Seneff has magically become an expert in glyphosate biochemistry and human disease while maintaining a career in artificial intelligence. Seneff’s last eight articles have also been published in the journal Entropy, which means she and her coauthors have spent $10,816.00 to publish in the last two years.

Chaotic journal.

Wait, did he say Entropy? Yes, he did. Who publishes Entropy? MDPI, one of the publishers on my list. Stephanie Seneff and her co-authors have successfully used this MDPI journal as their own scholarly vanity press, publishing eight papers in it since 2012.

An excellent blog post about Seneff and her questionable research appeared in the ScienceBlogs blog Respectful Insolence on December 31st.

People with science/political agendas are increasingly using journals like Interdisciplinary Toxicology and publishers like MDPI to disseminate their work, work that quality journals will not publish.

When publishers like MDPI disseminate research by science activists like Stephanie Seneff and her co-authors, I think it’s fair to question the credibility of all the research that MDPI publishes. Will MDPI publish anything for money?

By: Jeffrey Beall
Follow on Twitter
Source: Scholarly Open Access

Comments:

Evert Nijenhuizen says:

January 8, 2015 at 9:48 AM

Entropy has an impact factor of 1.564. So, with other words, perhaps the SCI Index-system might be corrupted as well. This requires further investigation. We might have something big here.

Jeffrey Beall says:

January 8, 2015 at 10:21 AM

It’s feasible that some of the MDPI journals get cited a lot because so many researchers cite their articles to refute them as junk science. These additional citations drive up the impact factors, and this may be one of the reasons the publisher accepts the junk in the first place. Ditto for the articles’ altmetrics.

Sudesh Kumar says:

January 8, 2015 at 10:11 AM

but isn’t i true that such incidence can occur with any journal irrespective of it being open access or closed access? there is nothing to stop an editor-in-chief of a closed access journal from published his own papers in his journal or publishing papers ascribing to an agenda.

herr doktor bimler says:

January 8, 2015 at 4:03 PM

A case in point is the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry from the Elsevier stable. Seems reputable enough, but they have published guest-edited Special Issues such as this one in 2011:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01620134/105/11

— guest-edited by Chris Exley, an aluminium-causes-everything anti-vaccine obsessive (and Seneff co-author), and packed with papers every bit as egregious as the open-access examples.

wkdawson says:

January 8, 2015 at 11:13 AM

I must admit that I was rather surprised at encountering this biosemiotic entropy… I really don’t have any idea what Knuth was thinking when he approved this series.

Moreover, some of the articles do not even have the word entropy anywhere in the body of the article. It doesn’t appear that the guest editor did much of anything or simply agrees with this view. The least that could have been done was tone down the assertions.

Anatoli says:

January 8, 2015 at 12:02 PM

Does it mean that journals should also inquire about the science/political agenda of the authors before accepting articles? Isn’t editorial and peer review enough? Let the public and blog writers do the former and journals do the publishing only instead off turning into social and political watchdogs.

Jeffrey Beall says:

January 8, 2015 at 1:50 PM

They’re not doing a legitimate peer review; that’s the problem. OA publishers want to earn as much money as possible so they accept unscientific papers and then pocket the author fees. MDPI published eight papers from this author in two years.

bueller007 says:

January 8, 2015 at 12:38 PM

See also this PubPeer thread. All of Seneff’s Entropy publications were in a single special edition of the journal, which was edited by a linguist who advocates unorthodox health views and who later coauthored a publication with Seneff that made heavy use of references from the “special edition”.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/C7497636B078354505F94D13F72C27

herr doktor bimler says:

January 8, 2015 at 12:57 PM

publishing eight papers in it since 2013
I think you mean “since 2012”.
All but one of those articles were in the “Special Issue Biosemiotic Entropy: Disorder, Disease, and Mortality”, which might more accurately have been called the Seneff Special Issue. Dates are confusing because the Special Issue was released in dribs and drabs over a couple of years.

It doesn’t appear that the guest editor did much of anything or simply agrees with this view.
The guest editor (John W. Oller, Jr) was an antivax loon who writes about the “autism epidemic”. Let us say that he had an agenda.

Her most recent paper — “Biological Water Dynamics and Entropy” — is an attempt to rehabilitate Homeopathic Magic Water, disguising it in a sepia bafflegab cloud of

quantum coherent nanomolecular clusters of magnetized water.

herr doktor bimler says:

January 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM

I am surprised that Seneff and co. published “Biological Water Dynamics and Entropy” in “Entropy”, when it would be more appropriate for “Water” — another journal from the MDPI, devoted to “the special properties of the second phase of liquid water, resulting from its quantum-coherent behaviour at room temperatures plus an alternative value of the phase of the quantum vacuum”.

RobRN says:

January 8, 2015 at 5:23 PM

Jeez – That’s all we need… MORE of Stephanie Seneff’s pseudo-scientific word salad available as ammunition for use by fringe elements!

Sunday Brownson Akpan, Nigeria says:

January 10, 2015 at 5:31 AM

Hello Beall
Please comment on the following journals/publishers.
Should i submits manuscripts to them?

(1) Expert journals of Economics (www.expertjournals.com)
(2) Journal of Global Agriculture and Ecology published by International Knowlegde press
(3) Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg (http://mitt-klosterneuburg.com/)

Anticipating your responses

Jeffrey Beall says:

January 10, 2015 at 9:10 AM

(1) Expert Journal of Economics (www.expertjournals.com)
I had not heard of this publisher before (Expert Journals). I analyzed it and found that it meets the criteria for inclusion in my list, so I have added it. I would recommend that you not submit your papers here. The journals are all broad in scope, perhaps to increase submissions and therefore revenue, and all four journals have the same co-EiCs, at least one of whom is the owner of the outfit.

(2) Journal of Global Agriculture and Ecology published by International Knowledge Press.
As far as I can tell, International Knowledge Press is not an open access publisher. I limit my work to open-access journals and publishers, so I have not fully analyzed this publisher. My guess is that this publisher’s journals have very few subscribers, so in submitting your work here you’d not be getting very much exposure for your work.

(3) Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg (http://mitt-klosterneuburg.com/)
This is the hijacked version of a legitimate journal. Please ignore the version of the journal that is at this website. See my list of hijacked journals here: https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/hijacked-journals/

1 28 29 30 31 32 36
Go to Top