Science - page 2

The owners of Allied Academies have made some truly incompetent business decisions, including associating with the notorious Indian publisher OMICS International — which is freely using Allied Academies’ name in its business dealings. You may have heard that OMICS is currently under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.

The owner of Allied Academies refuses to take responsibility for the mismanagement and is distributing an “open letter” that basically denies responsibility for the sorry state the publisher is in and blames me for damaging its reputation. This accusation is unprofessional and false.

The letter says,
As you may have heard, Allied Academies was added to Beall’s list of possible predatory publishers earlier this year. Without going into too many details, Jim Carland, [sic] signed a contract with a publishing company last year that was offering to give us website and copyediting support. That contract enabled them to post other journals to the Allied website, which we did not think would be an issue. Most of the newly added journals are in the field of science, which we thought would give Allied Academies a broader appeal. However, most of these newly added journals are open access, and Beall’s list consists of open access journals that employ a specific type of publication process that he deems to be unethical.

Here the publisher is being non-transparent and only telling half the story. Allied Academies stupidly signed a contract with OMICS International, a known predatory publisher. Why did they sign a contract with OMICS? Because it benefitted them financially. What respectable publisher would knowingly agree to let a predator add journals to its website?

The letter continues:
In the meantime, Beall’s list has created some permanent damage to the name Allied Academies, and we are contractually obligated to keep the open access journals on that site. Therefore, we have created a new site to move the business journals to: Allied Business Academies.

They blame me for the incompetent business decisions. If any publisher should be able to make competent business decisions, it is a publisher of scholarly business journals.

So Allied Academies’ “solution” is to create a new branding (Allied Business Academies) and a new website for its original journals. The publisher now has two websites:
o Allied Academies = http://www.alliedacademies.org/
o Allied Business Academies = http://www.alliedacademies.biz/Public/Default.aspx

Allied Academies was never a top-tier publisher. In fact, over the years, I have regularly received emails asking me why it wasn’t on my list and suggesting that I add it. However, its journals weren’t open-access, so I resisted (the OMICS journals on the site are OA, and after they appeared there I added Allied Academies to my list. This was in December, 2015).

Here are some of Allied Academies long-term weaknesses (before their affiliation with OMICS):
1.Coercive membership: According to their website, “All authors of manuscripts which are accepted for publication must become members of the appropriate Academy prior to publication of the manuscript. Membership fees are currently $75 per year, payable online at the Join an Academy page.”
2.The publisher offers a fast-track peer review option:

To be eligible for Accelerated Journal Review (AJR), at least one author must have registered for physical or Internet participation in one of our four regularly scheduled Conferences each year. Instructions for Accelerated Journal Review submission are emailed to Conference registrants when the registration fee is paid.
3.Like the Clute Institute, Allied Academies holds its “conferences” in popular tourist spots. In fact, its next three scheduled conferences will be in these places:

Las Vegas
Jamaica
New Orleans

OMICS’ Use of Allied Academies’ Name to Offer to Buy Other Publishers and Journals

OMICS is using the Allied Academies name to make offers to buy other journals. Here is an email following up on one such offer, with the victim journal’s identifying information redacted:

——– Forwarded message ——–

RE: Proposal for “[Redacted]”
Date: 2016-09-26 [Time redacted]
From: Kevin Jace
To: [Redacted]
Dear [Redacted],

Greetings!

Thanks for getting in touch with Allied Academies!

I am Kevin Jace writing to you on behalf of Allied Academies. Our executive Mr. Peter, with whom you are in communication earlier has left the organization and had passed on all the responsibilities to me which he used to take care. So, from now on I will be the authorized person to take this conversation further.

We are happy to see you get interest inclined towards this collaboration. I am now elaborating the brief proposal with which ALLIED ACADEMIES appeared along with the benefits that it carries. Kindly go through its content below:

Complete Acquisition:

On opting this: The entire ownership of the journal will be transferred to Allied Academies after which the entire responsibilities of the journal will be taken care by Allied Academies.

To gain entire ownership on the journal, our evaluators will look after few key parameters.

Key parameters:
o Indexing of the journal
o No. of volumes
o Publication start year
o Scope of the journal
o Total no. of articles published.

After evaluation, Allied Academies would pay a fixed royalty amount as a onetime payment for its complete acquisition (including the website in which the journal is being hosted).

Benefits after post acquisition:
o [Redacted] will gain support of extensive network of readers/authors that cling to Allied Academies.
o Definite increase in quality work as Allied Academies follows a stringent peer-review process giving the quality its first priority.
o Huge and strong marketing network of Allied Academies will help in enhancing the visibility of the journal globally.
o Promotion of the journal through Allied Academies’ marketing activities.
o Promotional activities through conference partners.
o Use of Editorial Manager tracking system for smooth running of the journal.
o Protection of the journal from plagiarized manuscripts
o Support and encouragement of millions of readers around the globe.
o Quality oriented team work and better visibility of the journal.
o Allied Academies would strive for better indexing of journal along with its maintenance and it’s up gradation.

Additional benefits:
o We will conduct editorial board meetings; special discounts to staff and editorial board members of the journal to attend the conferences.
o Conferences organized on the specific journal topic.
o Special issues released periodically.

In addition to this we will promote your website on the journal homepage.

Editorial board details:

The editorial board remains the same. For the betterment and global expansion of the journal we may add few more editors to the editorial board. It is to the discretion of the existing board members to remain with the board or not.

We coin some special issues for the journals and Editors have a benefit to earn about 25% of the revenue generated on the special issues for those articles which are contributed by the editors i.e., based on their contributions we pay them 25% share from the amount generated.

If you are interested in selling the journal to us, I shall soon come up with the price for complete takeover along with the website on which the journal is being hosted. On mutual terms agreed by both the parties, we shall draft and send the agreement to you. The agreement which is send to you should be duly signed by the owner of the journal. Once the agreement is signed, we will be paying you 20%-30% of the amount as a part of first tranche and remaining should be paid once we receive all the archives, Website credentials etc. as a part of second tranche. It solely depends on how fast you will send the files to go for remaining payment.

Please feel free to write to me if you have any further queries.

I will be glad to receive a positive response from you.

Thanks & Regards,

Kevin

This is the same strategy OMICS International used in Canada this year. It bought a publisher and then made subsequent offers to buy journals using the publisher’s name. The reputation of OMICS is so bad that it has to hide itself to do business with other publishers.

Conclusion

Referring to the Allied Academies’ journals, the open letter states:

They continue to be double-blind, peer reviewed and now have an acceptance rate of 15%. The journals have actually had a 15% acceptance rate on average for the last few years and we neglected to update it until now.

For years, Allied bragged that its journals had the same acceptance rate for all its journals: 25%. Now, they are claiming that the acceptance rate for all journals has magically dropped to 15%.

This is pure bunk. It is statistically impossible for an entire suite of journals to have the exact same acceptance rate and for that rate to drop to 15% simultaneously for all journals.

Who do they think they are fooling?

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

Comments:

Derek says:

October 11, 2016 at 10:16 AM

I agree that Allied Academies is a questionable publisher, to say the least. However, with regard to “Coercive membership”, I don’t think this is uncommon for even legitimate professional associations. For example, the Canadian Journal of Economics requires that at least one author be a member of the Canadian Economic Association when submitting a paper: http://economics.ca/cje/en/submissionfee.php I have also seen associations give a submission fee discount for members equal to the cost of joining, which amounts to the same thing (you might as well join and get the journal).

Batuhan Akben says:

October 13, 2016 at 3:25 AM

I have submitted some manuscripts to Biomedical Research Journal published by Allied Academies. They have rigorously evaluated by reviewers. Even, some of them have been rejected. Reviewing period is about 2-3 months. Publishing period is about 4 months after acceptance. In addition, acceptance rate of the Biomedical Research is about 15% (I think it is not high). If they publish the articles for only money the publishing period would not so long. So, I can say that the Biomedical Research Journal is quite quality.

You made all of Allied Academies Journals suspicious by adding only publisher name in to your list. I think you should list the suspicious journals of Allied Acadimes instead of publisher name.

Philip says:

December 6, 2016 at 8:37 AM

While I have no love for OMICS, this blog is clearly written in a way that manipulates the reader. For example, the Allied Academies letter states that “The journals have actually had a 15% acceptance rate on average” but the blog author then says “It is statistically impossible for an entire suite of journals to have the exact same acceptance rate”. That statement twists what the letter said. Saying the journals have an AVERAGE of 15% doesn’t mean that all the journals individually have a rejection rate of 15%. There’s lots of other examples of misleading statements in this blog. If you want to fight predatory publishers, don’t stoop to their level by being misleading and manipulative in your own blog.

If you haven’t already, you may soon receive a spam email from the predatory Journal of Nature and Science (JNSCI) — I just got one myself. The spam email will praise one of your recent articles and ask you to re-work it into a short, new article for the journal. It will be signed by “Dr. Frank, Ph.D., Editor/Reviewer,” a contrived name.

“Dr. Frank” is really Aiguo Wu, a former postdoc and later staff researcher at UCLA. He lives in Monterey Park, California and operates the journal out of his apartment.

Wu’s image and profile appear on the lab website of UCLA’s Dr. Fernando Gómez-Pinilla, at his “NeuroLife Laboratory.” However, Wu’s LinkedIn profile (now taken down) indicates he left the lab (and UCLA) in 2013 to dedicate himself to the journal, spamming and cashing in on the easy article acceptance the journal offers.

Manage Your Own Peer Review

Indeed, the Journal of Nature and Science stands out for allowing scholarly authors the option of arranging their own pre-submission peer review and then sending the review reports along with the manuscript to the journal, where it is then rapidly published for a fee.

The journal’s “Peer Review Process” page spells it out:

Before Submission: Your manuscript has been reviewed by two or more reviewers and improved based on their comments when you submit it to JNSCI. That means the peer review process is completed by yourself before you submit it to JNSCI.

JNSCI is more than happy to publish your pre-pub peer reviewed article.

Naturally, such a system is subject to abuse, with authors writing peer reviews of their own papers and submitting them as if they were from peers.

JNSCI’s Marketing Strategy

The journal’s niche is that it offers researchers the ability to publish short articles quickly and cheaply — and with the self-done peer review.

Wu charges 99 dollars to publish a research article and 80 dollars to publish a review article. If you got one of the spam emails, you are an “invited author” and have the opportunity to ask for a 50% discount on the fees.

He also offers a free option, but the published papers are not published open-access, and authors must transfer copyright. The papers are then available through a pay-per-view option. He profits from either option.

Analysis

Wu’s shabby journal is an affront to both nature and science. His spam emails are annoying many busy researchers, and they should cease immediately. The journal exists only to enable Wu to make an easy profit from researchers’ need to publish. I wonder if he is reporting all his income to state and federal tax authorities.

Hat tip: Dr. Kathryn H. Jacobsen

Appendix: The spam email I received:

From: Dr.Frank | Editor [mailto:publish@jnsci.org]
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 7:52 AM
To: Beall, Jeffrey
Subject: Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research.-

Hello, your paper is so interesting to me. May I ask you:

Could you contribute short review based on your published papers OR report your new research findings in JNSCI?

JNSCI (2377-2700) has published more than 100 interesting articles from Editor-invited and/or NIH-funded authors.

You can submit online: www.jnsci.org OR by email: admin@jnsci.org

Your paper may be published rapidly within just one week. Hope you have interest at this time OR in the future.

Thanks for help.

Best wishes,

Dr. Frank, Ph.D., Editor/Reviewer
Journal of Nature and Science (JNSCI)
ISSN 2377-2700 | www.jnsci.org | Los Angeles, CA
—————-
Note. I do not have mailing list, but send you this personally (not automatically) after I saw your interesting paper. Please forgive me if you received similar email.

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

Hyderabad, India-based open-access publisher OMICS International is on a buying spree, snatching up legitimate scholarly journals and publishers, incorporating them into its mega-fleet of bogus, exploitative, and low-quality publications.

Sources indicate that OMICS has purchased the publisher Pulsus Group. In February, 2016, I reported on some strange activity surrounding the Canadian publisher Andrew John Publishing. Now is becoming clear that OMICS purchased Andrew John and is using it as a Canadian ‘base’ of sorts to purchase other Canadian journals, especially society journals.

The Pulsus Group website bears a London, UK address. Pulsus has published about two-dozen Canadian medical society journals, including these titles:
o Canadian Hearing Report
o Canadian Journal of Pathology
o Canadian Journal of General Internal Medicine
o Canadian Journal of Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
o Canadian Journal of Restorative Dentistry and Prosthodontics

The medical societies had contracted with Pulsus to manage the publishing of their journals for them, a common practice. Now there is panic among the staff and editors of many Canadian medical journals as they learn that OMICS International has purchased Pulsus.

OMICS International is not a bona fide scholarly publisher. It does not operate in good faith and victimizes honest researchers.

OMICS International is a major source of annoying spam and a threat to science. It is a predatory publisher and is included on my list. I have also added Pulsus to my list.

In addition, OMICS has set up a new publisher — called Open Access Journals — and is transferring some of its recently-acquired journals there.

OMICS’ new imprint Open Access Journals claims on its “contact us” page that it belongs to Pulsus and also shows a base in London, UK.

One of the journals in the fleet of OMICS’ Open Access Journals imprint is Neuropsychiatry. The journal has a legitimate impact factor and is included in the top academic indexes. The former publisher of this journal is Future Medicine. In fact, most of the Open Access Journals journals appear to have been purchased from Future Medicine.

A note on Future Medicine’s website says:

OMICS International is on a mission to take over all of scholarly publishing. It is purchasing journals and publishers and incorporating them into its evil empire. Its strategy is to saturate scholarly publishing with its low-quality and poorly-managed journals, aiming to squeeze out and acquire legitimate publishers.

Appendix

A. List of Pulsus journals as of 2016-09-23 (copied from the website)
1.Allied Hearing Health
2.Canadian Hearing Report
3.Canadian Hearing Report enews
4.Canadian IONM News
5.Canadian Journal of Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
6.Canadian Journal of General Internal Medicine
7.Canadian Journal of Medical of Sonography
8.Canadian Journal of Pathology
9.Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy
10.Canadian Journal of Restorative Dentistry and Prosthodontics
11.CASLPO Today
12.Clinical Investigation
13.Clinical Practice (Therapy)
14.Current Research: Cardiology
15.Current Research: Integrative Medicine
16.Diabetes Management
17.Imaging in Medicine
18.International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology
19.International Journal of Clinical Skills
20.Interventional Cardiology
21.Journal of Men’s Health
22.Journal of Sexual & Reproductive Medicine
23.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada
24.Listen/Écoute
25.Neuropsy
26.Pharmaceutical Bioprocessing
27.Plastic Surgery
28.Plastic Surgery: Case Studies
29.Signal
30.Sound Matters
31.Vascular Access
32.Vibes
33.Wavelength

List of Pulsus journals as of 2016-09-28 (copied from the website)

1.Plastic Surgery (Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Groupe pour l’Avancementde la Microchirurgie Canada, Canadian Society for Surgery of the Hand)
2.Plastic Surgery: Case Studies (Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Groupe pour l’Avancement de la Microchirurgie Canada, Canadian Society for Surgery of the Hand)
3.Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy (Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists)
4.Current Research: Cardiology (International Academy of Cardiovascular Sciences)
5.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada (Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease (AMMI) Canada)
6.Canadian Journal of Medical of Sonography (Sonography Canada)
7.Canadian IONM News (Canadian Association of Neurophysiological Monitoring (CANM))
8.Current Research: Integrative Medicine
9.Journal of Sexual & Reproductive Medicine
10.Diabetes Management
11.Interventional Cardiology
12.Clinical Practice (Therapy)
13.Clinical Investigation
14.International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology
15.Imaging in Medicine
16.Pharmaceutical Bioprocessing
17.Neuropsychiatry
18.International Journal of Clinical Skills
19.Canadian Hearing Report

B. List of Open Access Journals journals as of 2016-09-23:
1.Clinical Investigation
2.Clinical Practice (Therapy)
3.Diabetes Management
4.Imaging in Medicine
5.International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology
6.International Journal of Clinical Skills
7.Interventional Cardiology
8.Neuropsychiatry
9.Pharmaceutical Bioprocessing

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

There’s a new open-access publisher that claims it is cooperating with Elsevier, but I think the claim is highly unlikely. The publisher — Qingres — claims it’s based in the UK, another claim I find doubtful.

The publisher’s main page has a rotating banner at the top with two slides. One (shown above) proclaims its purported association with Elsevier, and the other invites researchers to submit manuscripts to “Create a SCI journal with high impact factors.”

The publisher launched with seven medical journals, all broad in scope and all in disciplines already saturated with journals — there’s no need for these new ones.

The website is adorned with logos from legitimate companies and organizations, and there’s a long list of “Cooperative Institutions.”

The publisher has Photo shopped its name on a picture of a building somewhere, the second time I’ve seen this deception.

Qingres makes several mentions of SCI and impact factors on the website. At the bottom of some pages this statement appears:

We only wish the impact factor of this Journal to go up with time elapse!

In fact, the publisher has waived fees until the journals get indexed in SCI, something I estimate will take a very long time, if it ever occurs. In the “authors’ guide” for one of the journals, the publisher says,

The publication for JPBS is now free of charge. After it has been included in SCI, the publication fee would be charged.

They also reveal their lack of publishing experience by giving contradictory licensing policies. In one place they say, “Editors/authors who contribute in the JPBS will transfer copyright of their work to the JPBS publisher.” But in another place they say, “The majority of authors retain copyright for their articles and our standard license allows liberal reuse rights.”

The publisher’s internet domain name data is blinded, except for this:

Registrant Name: huifang jiao

Qingres — the name is not explained — is an optimistic yet poorly-conceived open-access startup. I recommend that researchers not submit manuscripts to its journals and decline invitations to serve on its editorial boards.

Hat tip: Dr. Judit Ward, et al.

Appendix: List of Qingres journals as of 2016-09-24:
1.Journal of Biomedical Frontiers
2.Journal of International Medical Analysis
3.Journal of Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine
4.Journal of Precision Medicine
5.Journal of Psychiatry and Brain Science
6.Med One
7.Pharmaceutical Frontiers

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

Here’s the story of a professor at Michigan Technological University who appears to be very active on Wikipedia. He apparently tried to get the article about me deleted, and there is some evidence that he (or somebody) uses Wikipedia to promote his published articles. He is the subject of a Wikipedia investigation.

This busy guy is Joshua Pearce, an associate professor of Materials Science and Engineering and of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He appears to be another open-access / open-source zealot and apparently knows how to use Wikipedia to his advantage.

So, someone — apparently him — nominated the article about me for deletion. Nothing wrong with that — anyone in the world can make such a nomination, and Wikipedia has an open process for dealing with such nominations. In this case, the nomination was dealt with quickly — in a matter of hours in fact — with the encyclopedia concluding: “The result was speedy keep. No argument presented for deletion.”

The nomination was started by a guy using the handle “Gihiw” on Wikipedia. On the nomination page, there is a statement about this Wikipedia editor. It says:

“Gihiw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.”

This account has now been blocked by Wikipedia. Now there’s another page on Wikipedia called “Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.” On that page, there is a section about Joshua Pearce. It says:

“J. M. Pearce [edit]

While cleaning up citations to predatory journals I found a number of citations to Joshua Pearce (Pearce, JM). Other references in the same articles were also tot he same author, in different journals. I went through some histories and found that in each case the reference was added by a single-purpose account. I suspect there are a lot of them, here’s a brief sample:

o Pearce, J.M. o Wikiwarrior77 (talk contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)
o Gihiw (talk contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)
o EconomistfromtheFuture (talk contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)
o Farmbob (talk contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)

I understand that Pearce is an authority, but this is stretching credulity: every single article I find with citations to his work, the citations were added by accounts that appear only to edit articles where he is cited, and which usually add those citations themselves.

This will take a while to check through and clean up. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)”

Note that one of the Wikipedia editor names attributed here to Pearce is Gihiw, the account that nominated my article for deletion. So, is Dr. Pearce the person who nominated my article for deletion?

There is another page on Wikipedia with a section on “Citation spamming” that mentions Pearce. It says, ” Multiple additions of citations to the same author from predatory and other journals, by multiple editors with no history other than adding that material (i.e. probable citation spamming)”

Here we see that someone on Wikipedia suspects that a single Wikipedia editor is using seven accounts to add citations to Pearce’s published work. Is it Pearce himself?

Also, why would Pearce want to nominate my article for deletion? Perhaps his motivation lies in the fact that he has published in journals I have listed as predatory — here’s an example:

Pearce has published in the journal Modern Economy, from the China-based publisher Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP). This publisher is on my list, and I’ve blogged about the pseudo-science it has proudly published, without retraction, including an article that describes sentient civilizations living on the planet Mars.

This publisher is perfect for Pearce, and SCIRP published his sole-authored article (written under his real name) “Quantifying the Value of Open Source Hard-ware [sic] Development” last year. Note that SCIRP’s copyediting is so poor that they use an obsolete spelling of the word hardware.

Conclusion

So, the evidence points to the conclusion that a professor at Michigan Tech who, seemingly unhappy with my listing as predatory the bogus publisher he uses to publish his articles in, nominates the Wikipedia article about me for deletion.

At least one person on Wikipedia is investigating several apparent sock puppet accounts that engage in “citation spamming” to the benefit of Pearce, adding citations to his work (from both legitimate and predatory journals) to Wikipedia articles.

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

Comments:

TBOU says:

September 22, 2016 at 10:11 AM

There are quite a few like him on Wikipedia. One I saw a long time ago was this guy. The publications don’t seem that notable (many assistant professors of any discipline have similar records) and the open science advocacy seems minimal and not that grand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_S.I.D._Lang

Julian M. Stewart says:

September 22, 2016 at 11:50 AM

I find Jeffrey Beall to be reliable and spot-on.
I just tweeted a message concerning this attack on his credibility.
I suggest all those who rely on Dr. Beall do the same and perhaps he will receive well-deserved praise.

caly says:

September 22, 2016 at 1:36 PM

Maybe its a publish or perish thing. If he has lots of articles and lots of citations, maybe his pay is higher or something. If you really care about his ethics I’d let his department chair or someone know.

Krishnamurthy Bhat says:

September 22, 2016 at 10:30 PM

An associate professor of Materials Science and Engineering and of Electrical and Computer Engineering, publishing in “Modern Economy” it self speaks volumes about the research credibility of the individual.

CN says:

September 23, 2016 at 7:59 AM

I would not say that that in itself says anything about his credibility. Open source 3-D printable stuff has been a pretty hot topic from both the engineering and economic perspectives. It’s the grandeur and all this Wiki stuff…

Bill Williams says:

September 23, 2016 at 8:36 AM

Agreed – it is not unknown for scholars in technical areas to also publish in entrepreneurial/economic journals.

The grandeur is, of course, another matter entirely,

Joshua Pearce says:

September 23, 2016 at 2:51 PM

Dear Dr. Beall,
A colleague I respect spoke highly of you and sent me your blog post. Accusations on this blog based on anonymous Wikipedia editors falls into the same trap I am accused of (i.e. they are as groundless as deleting your page) – I respectfully ask that you remove them because from my perspective this looks a lot like a witch hunt using Wikipedia sock puppets. The charges are serious enough I felt the need to respond formally.
As you know I am a proponent of open source hardware – which must have struck a nerve somewhere for me to be a target of such a weird campaign. It is particularly interesting that this came out the day after I released public comment on Europe’s open access policy.
I have over 200 peer-reviewed articles that have been cited in the peer-reviewed literature over 5000 times. Most are sci-tech, but a few are policy related. A few times a year something our lab does makes the news – so it does not seem abnormal that some of them are used by Wikipedia. As I told you earlier I had ceased trying to help Wikipedia many years ago as for me it was a big waste of time. (See my obliterated article explaining the concept of “fill factor” as evidence). Note: this also means I am familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that attempting to delete your page would be pointless unless I was willing to spend hours defending the claims. Why would I bother doing that unless I was a moron?
To the best of my knowledge only one of my articles has been published in any journal on your list. The article was about calculating the value of open hardware. It was a follow up to an earlier article I published in Science. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6100/1303
It definitely went through peer-review as I remember having to add more depth to the core example for revision. I believe it is technically sound – although the copy editing is messed up. It showed that the value created developing open hardware easily overcomes the investment. It said: “The inescapable conclusion of this study is that FOSH development should be funded by organizations interested in maximizing return on public investments particularly in technologies associated with science, medicine and education. ”
This conclusion has very serious repercussions for public funding of sci-tech in the U.S. (and public access to it for all uses) and I am sure makes some people angry. That said, if you are aware of actual flaws in the math or logic – please let me know immediately.
Due to the obvious potential for accusations of hypocrisy I wanted it in an open access journal — not a lot of good choices is this new field at the time. I am personally not happy with that particular publishing experience (non native English speaking copy editing) – I have also had poor experiences with the top traditional publishers.
I have no idea what the actual goals of the people/person was in messing with your account and smearing me. If you disagree with anything I have actually written (you can tell because I sign it) I am happy to debate – although I prefer it in some sort of legitimate neutral forum rather than blogs or Wikipedia talk pages where anyone can say anything.
Sincerely
Joshua Pearce

James Deakin says:

October 7, 2016 at 2:53 PM

A very courteous and measured response to what I must say feels like a rather unwarranted and deeply personal attack. I feel the somewhat contrived interpretation of the evidence presented in the original blog post does not justify what reads to be a somewhat mean-spirited commentary. I would be interested to read the author’s response to this post.

Tunke says:

September 25, 2016 at 7:21 AM

EconomistfromtheFuture doesn’t seem to cite Pearce anywhere in their edits. They do cite S Greenstein a large number of times and as their IP address geolocates to Cambridge, MT I’d suspect that they’re Shane Greenstein not Joshua Pearce.

Adam Jenkins says:

September 28, 2016 at 8:16 AM

I’ve been on Wikipedia for a long time now, and yes, this is a problem. However, there’s nothing in this case that would make me conclude that Pearce was behind it – of the accounts listed, two clearly had nothing to do with him, and the others can easily be explained given the likelihood of Pearce being referenced on those topics. There’s no investigation on Wikipedia – just a single person raising concerns, and no one finding anything to follow up.

In regards to your biography being nominated for deletion, that has a much more typical reason behind it. The intention was not to target you, but it appears to be retaliation against another editor on Wikipedia. Sadly, this is not particularly unusual.

MC says:

October 2, 2016 at 7:08 PM

Tend to agree. I have spent time editing on Wikipedia as well (still can’t believe my self-inclusion under “Bash Bros” was deleted) and I think you’re right. I usually side with Beall, but I don’t see the “zealousness” for open access from this guy.

Heysueus christo says:

October 1, 2016 at 10:23 AM

My my is little ol’ Joshie giving you an issue? Lol this guy is a clown. Problem is all these academic types can’t tell because most have never actually had to work for a living. Checked out what he’s famous the for (3D printing, recyclebot, extrusion pretty much) he’s acting like he’s on the cutting edge of technology and this is all new stuff. First off the plastic extruder has been around since the 60’s so we got lots of info about processes and technology. Second this grand environmental idea of recycling waste plastics for filament is garbage. Different polymers (plastics) have different melt temperatures, the screw in the machine is not sectioned (feed, transition, and metering sections) there is no mixing pins, second flight or even screen pack to give backpressure. He’s teaching kids stone age methods and telling them they are ready for the world, it’s a nice experiment to teach foundations but this is not progress. No one should be credited with an open source license, extrusion is older than the idea of the open license. All polymer processing uses extrusion. Injection moulding, blow moulding, 3d printing even, they all have an extruder component. You are in Colorado, go talk to someone at http://www.universalplasticsinc.com show them this guy’s work it will give them a good laugh. Peer review is useless if all the peers are morons… we should hold less faith in the paper people own and more in the logic of their ideas

Cureus is an open-access medical journal based in Palo Alto, California. It charges no author fees. I recently became aware of some possibly serious problems with an article the journal published in July, 2015.

First, a citation to the article in question, a review article:

Blum Kenneth, Badgaiyan Rajenda D., & Gold Mark S. (2015). Hypersexuality addiction and withdrawal: Phenomenology, neurogenetics and epigenetics. Cureus 7(7): e290. http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.290

My first concern is with the peer review, which according to the journal itself only took two days, followed by the actual publication of the article a day later:

I don’t know whether this fast of a peer review is acceptable to the medical research community or whether the fact that it is a review article justifies the fast review. Was the publication rushed to press because of the extra attention and page views an article on hypersexuality will deliver to the journal?

The journal has a very large editorial board, made up of world-renowned medical researchers. Are they okay with the fast peer review?

My second concern is with a big mistake that appeared in the article’s abstract when it was first published and how that mistake was handled.

The original abstract appears above; the corrected one follows. As you can see, the first one starts out with the clause “Hypersexuality is now part of the DSM-V …”. This phrase is removed from the corrected abstract.

How could such a fundamental error be published in a serious medical journal? The determination of whether a given medical condition is part of the DSM-V should be easy to make. It’s binary. If the authors of the article know so much about the topic, how could they make such a blunder? Why did the peer reviewers also miss the error? Did the fast peer review contribute to the mistake not being caught?

The original abstract still appears in the PubMed version of the article.

My third concern is that no correction notice appeared for the changed article. I think the Committee on Publication Ethics advises that publishers issue a correction notice whenever the content of an article is changed. I cannot find one for this change.

My final concern is that the journal has what appears to be a contrived metric:

It’s called the Scholarly Impact Quotient (SIQ), and it’s an article-level metric. I’m not sure it has any value and fear it could be misread or misused to make the articles and the journal appear better than they really are.

I think these issues I’ve identified are serious. I realize Cureus is a new journal and still finding its way. However, given all the lofty rhetoric on the Cureus website, such as “Cureus is the medical journal for a new generation of doctors and patients,” I believe that the blunders I’ve described here should not have occurred.

Cureus’ FAQ says, “In the future, Cureus plans to introduce paid, targeted ads from BioPharma … “. I hope the journal is able to get its house in order before it starts cashing checks from pharmaceutical companies.

Hat tip: Dr. Nicole Prause

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

Comments:

Ken Lanfear says:

August 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM

The Cureus review process is explained in their blog. Apparently, they invite a fairly large number of reviewers, hoping a sufficient number can meet a very short (1 week?) deadline. Obviously not perfect, and I am concerned about their errata policy.

The copy editing for Cureus is do-it-yourself. The blog already includes several laments about authors providing sloppy manuscripts. Is this really sustainable?

Cureus seems like an interesting and innovative experiment. It uses crowd sourcing to keep the expenses low, though I wish they were more forthcoming about their funding. Is Stanford involved? Also, I wonder about their long-term security against false science, gamed reviews, etc. Might be worth following and learning.

tekija says:

August 20, 2015 at 1:15 PM

Interestingly, an older paper by the Editor-in-Chief has an expression of concern attached to it:

http://www.cureus.com/articles/2543-extreme-tolerance-of-the-optic-nerve-to-ionizing-radiation-a-case-report-revealing-the-role-of-the-dose-volume-effect

The expression is completely opaque, because as far as I can judge it is neither dated nor specified.

Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic) says:

August 21, 2015 at 3:39 AM

Good post. For more about Kenneth Blum see this post of mine.

Blum is the founder of United Scientific Group (USG), an OA publisher on Jeffrey’s list, and which Jeffrey reported is linked to the notorious OMICS group.

The two publishers certainly have a similar modus operandi including mass mails to researchers with invitations to conferences.

John R. Adler, Jr., M.D. says:

August 22, 2015 at 9:01 PM

Like every journal, Cureus is imperfect, and at times false statements slip through its pre-publication peer review process and make it into published articles. The current paper is a case in point, specifically with regard to hypersexuality being part of the DSM. Nevertheless, unlike nearly all other journals, Cureus emphasizes post publication review and enables a very simple process for commenting and tool for crowd sourcing article quality, i.e. SIQ. However in this case a handful of critics have unfortunately expressed reluctance to use Cureus’ comment process; I don’t understand such reluctance and assume they prefer to kill papers under the clock of anonymity. Regardless, the senior editorial team has embarked on an external investigation, directed by ICMJE guidelines, and a final adjudication of this matter will require process and patience. I am really not at liberty to say more at this time.

Despite the above incident, I do quarrel with the implication that somehow 48 hours, is as rule, insufficient time to review a manuscript. No reviewer ever spends more than a few hours actually doing a review so the “time required to review” is nothing more than the time allotted for reviewer procrastination. A long pre-publication review period merely means the reviewers took their time getting around to the manuscript.

Yes Cureus is different that nearly all other journals, and isn’t for everyone. However for extremely busy practicing clinicians who wish to report important but simple clinical findings without the cost and procedural overhead of many journals, while reaching the widest possible “open access” audience, Cureus has a lot to offer. I think if you are willing to dig deeper into Cureus you will discover that there is much to like! And yes, I would like “my doctor to read this journal”, because if s/he does, s/he will have ready access to and probably be practicing leading edge clinical medicine.

Neuroskeptic…..I have no idea what conferences you are referring to when you state that Cureus sends “mass emails to researchers with invitation(s) to conferences”? Perhaps you are confusing Cureus with some other open access journal

herr doktor bimler says:

August 23, 2015 at 6:48 AM

I have no idea what conferences you are referring to when you state that Cureus sends “mass emails to researchers with invitation(s) to conferences”?

When Neuroskeptic wrote about “the two publishers”, I read him as referring to United Scientific Group and “the notorious OMICS group”.

Dom says:

August 26, 2015 at 6:09 AM

While possible, 48 hours for a review is highly unusual – I say this from the viewpoint of being an academic editor as well as a reviewer of papers. Many a review will require extra digging, some help (information) from others, sometimes for literature to be sourced (few establishments can afford the breadth of journal subscriptions required for reviewing), and some simple reflection on the final review.

The suggestion that taking longer than 48 hours is laziness (or lack of application) seems to make light of the overly full diaries of most academics, who are after all doing this for free.

As to anonymity, it is sadly the case that there are large figures in many fields that no-one wishes to cross and that these individuals often have a big influence in grant funding. As such they hold the jobs of pure academics in their hands. Of course clinicians, such as yourself, can still pay the mortgage with earnings from the clinic, but the rest of us lack that second income stream, so we need that anonymity.

John R. Adler, Jr., M.D. says:

August 26, 2015 at 1:21 PM

I have seen first hand in and around this particular article the fear some researchers feel when being asked to render a judgment; I am astounded and at some point I intend to write my own blog about it. So yes I do feel the pain non-clinical researchers must witness when being asked to review articles non-anonymously. However, the Cureus model skirts this issue to some extent by virtue of the fact our journal is willing to publish all credible/plausible medical science that is presented in good faith, and then only AFTER publication sort out what is quality/important via our SIQ crowd sourcing tool, i.e. by design peer rejection is not a big part of our review process. It is my hope that this model of post publication review will catch on but for now that which is foreign is mistrusted by many a traditionalist. Meanwhile I cannot emphasize enough that in my hardcore world of clinical medicine many/most publications are observational in nature. Data analysis is almost secondary and oftentimes superfluous. With such clinical articles, and in the Cureus model, there is not a whole lot for a reviewer to judge…..unless the reviewer deems the obervations are totally bogus or fraudulent. This fact means that an extended review process is often little more than an opportunity for political meddling, which I have seen a lot on my 30 years of scholarly publishing!

John R. Adler, Jr., M.D. says:

August 22, 2015 at 9:05 PM

tekija…..with regard to the paper you reference (my own article in fact) what expression of concern are you referring to?

tekija says:

August 23, 2015 at 12:14 PM

Thank you for asking. When I navigated to that page on the day of commenting, it had a red bar the same color than in the “send comment” button just below author names with a white text “This article has an expression of concern”. However, I do not get it today.

John R. Adler, Jr., M.D. says:

August 23, 2015 at 1:12 PM

The only paper in the “history of Cureus” to host an “expression of concern” is: http://www.cureus.com/articles/3046-hypersexuality-addiction-and-withdrawal-phenomenology-neurogenetics-and-epigenetics

I suspect this was what you must have seen, especially since this paper was the focus of Jeff’s blog?

John R. Adler, Jr., M.D. says:

August 23, 2015 at 10:51 AM

herr doktor bimler……OK, I understand now that Neuroskeptic was not referencing Cureus. Clearly I was in a defensive frame of mind when writing! 🙂

By the way, I liken Cureus a lot to a peer reveiwed WordPress, where intelligent communication can be conducted, adjudicated and archived. This reference is perhaps understandable to this current WordPress audience.

Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic) says:

October 13, 2015 at 5:04 AM

The paper “Hypersexuality Addiction and Withdrawal” has now been retracted: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4596082/ because it contained incorrect statements about DSM-V.

Although it will be back, we’re told: “In an effort to unambiguously rectify all errors, the authors have agreed to submit a significantly revised manuscript for subsequent peer review and re-publication.”

This raises the question of why it was corrected to fix some errors, but later retracted for the very same reason. Was the correction not enough?

John R. Adler, Jr., M.D. says:

October 13, 2015 at 5:56 PM

Speaking as the Editor-in-Chief of Cureus I can say that the published erratum to the “Hypersexuality” article addressed the vast majority of the incorrect statements around the DSM-V, and under most cirumstances would have been enough to rectify the situation. However, it turns out that the politics surrounding “hypersexuality as an addiction” are particularly vicious leaving little room for honest differences of opinion or inadvertent or even innocuous mistakes. So yes, you could say that the “correction was not enough”. But ultimately the above was my rationale for asking the authors to retract the article…..the newly published article can now be found at:

http://www.cureus.com/articles/3465-hypersexuality-addiction-and-withdrawal-phenomenology-neurogenetics-and-epigenetics

Having been personally pummeled, along with the journal, in the midst of what is largely a political spat, I intend to soon publish a blog detailing more of the story at play here, and illustrating how scientific discourse, can, in the age of social media, be easily held hostage to politics.

Venkataramana Kandi says:

October 27, 2015 at 12:15 AM

I take this opportunity to support the cureus journal. The issues raised by critics are simply to undermine the journal and hold no truth. The standard of most journals depends on the quality of editing that goes before publication and CUREUS gives certainly provides you best editing services free of charge.

Venkataramana Kandi says:

August 6, 2016 at 10:36 AM

Editorial quality stands higher than peer review. A journal with better Editorial standard would certainly overcome a weakened peer review process. Having published significant number of papers in CUREUS, I guess the editorial quality of CUREUS is really outstanding.

My personal experience with CUREUS tells a lot about its publication procedure. My review paper which i submitted to CUREUS passed peer reviewer but failed at the editorial approval and was rejected with elaborate suggestions to improve the paper.

This journal definitely is not for people having the habit of professional misconduct.

Venkataramana Kandi (K V Ramana)PhD, FAGE
A/Prof of Microbiology
Member Asian Council for Science Editors (ASCE)
Prathima Inst. of Medical Sciences
Karimnagar-505417
Telangana
India
email: ramana_20021@rediffmail.com
Alternate emails: ramana20021@gmail.com
Mobile: 9440704234
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ramana_K_v?ev=hdr_xprf
http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-6331-2010
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7197-0448
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/venkataramana-kandi/31/b60/94b

Mac says:

November 28, 2016 at 12:48 PM

I have published with Cureus and I have to say their Editorial process is quite harsh and nitpicky. In my case I passed the peer-review process with flying colors but when time came for editorial review I had quite a few changes and additions I had to make in order to get it published. This is clearly not a paper for trash science.

Scientific spammer PLOS ONE is an ongoing source of amusement. Its peer review is regularly called into question, with the journal accepting unscientific papers. PLOS ONE increasingly resembles a lonely and un-selective digital repository more than a scholarly publication. Here’s a report of another PLOS ONE blooper.

Dr. Norman Sleep is a geophysicist at Stanford University. Recently, he received a spam email from PLOS ONE inviting him to conduct an ad hoc peer review of an article submitted to the journal (apparently PLOS ONE’s 5,000-member editorial board is only for show).

Here’s part of the spam email Dr. Sleep received from PLOS ONE:

From: PLOS ONE
Reply-To: PLOS ONE Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 9:03 PM
To: Norman Sleep
Subject: Reminder: Pending invitation to review PLOS ONE manuscript about to expire – PONE-D-16-24600 – [EMID:960690e1f258b755]

*Do not reply directly to this email. Please use the links below to accept or decline this assignment to avoid receiving automated reminders.

—————————-

Dear Dr Sleep,

We are writing to follow up on your invitation from Dr. Harry Zhang to review the below manuscript, which has been submitted for publication in PLOS ONE. The Academic Editor values your expertise and would greatly appreciate your time in reviewing the submission. This invitation will time out in 24 hours, at which point you will be unable to accept the invitation and review the manuscript. Please click the “accept” link below if you would like to evaluate this submission.

PONE-D-16-24600
Physical activity, energy expenditure, nutritional habits, quality of sleep and stress levels in shift-working health care personnel

The author list and abstract are appended below in addition to more detailed information about PLOS ONE and its editorial criteria. If you accept this assignment, you are confirming that you have no competing interests that may affect your ability to provide an objective evaluation. Our Competing Interests policy can be found at http://www.plosone.org/static/competing.action. If you have any potential competing interests, you should decline this assignment.

—————————-

So, as you see, the journal solicited Dr. Sleep — a geophysicist — to peer review a manuscript about sleep, which is far outside his area of expertise but matches his surname.

This is evidence that PLOS ONE is using a flawed, automated system for selecting peer reviewers.

Publishing in PLOS ONE is easy; the journal is not very selective. Its editorial board of over five thousand members apparently doesn’t perform too many peer reviews, and the journal mainly exists to generate income to subsidize the publishing of PLOS’s specialized journals.

Appendix: A spam email from PLOS ONE I received recently.

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

I think Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is a totally bogus publisher. Here I would like to repeat my warning to all researchers that they not send any papers to this dangerous, pretend publisher.

I have written about this publisher here twice before, once in December, 2012, right after it launched, and once in June, 2014, when it became evident that the publisher would accept and publish absolutely anything, no matter how outlandish or unscientific it was.

I use screenshots from articles published in Science Publishing Group journals to illustrate the concept of “obvious pseudo-science.” Here’s one of the examples I use:

It’s an article entitled “Mathematical proof of the Law of Karma.”

The publisher claims it’s based in New York, but this claim is as false as the science it publishes. I’ve been told they’re really based in Pakistan, but calling their telephone number right now (+1 (347) 688-8931), after many rings, a young woman answers, speaking with what sounds like a Chinese accent.

“Where are you located?” I ask.

“Do you have inquiry about your paper?” she responds.

“What city are you in?”

“We in New York City.”

One of the reasons I am writing a third blog post about Science Publishing Group is that I regularly receive inquiries from people who have published in one of their many journals, researchers who soon realize they’ve made a mistake.

They write asking how to get out of the mess they are in.

Science Publishing Group preys on young researchers. It harvests data from local and regional conferences and, using smarmy language, invites each presenter to convert his or her presentation into an article for one of SciencePG’s journals.

I learned recently of an undergraduate research symposium in Ohio, in which this publisher sent spam emails praising the students’ presentations and inviting an article. In one case, the students thought the invitation was authentic and became excited, but a knowledgeable advisor was able to stop them before any harm was done.

Science Publishing Group now publishes 250 journals, and the titles of many of them begin with “American Journal.”

If you get a spam email from this company, I recommend you delete it immediately. Further, do not submit any papers to any of their journals. Science Publishing Group is a threat to researchers, a threat to science communication, and a threat to science.

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

The Thomson Reuters Master Journal List is not a journal whitelist and should not be used as one. Numerous low-quality and predatory journals are announcing their inclusion in this list as a mark or guarantee of quality, fooling many.

The purpose of the list is to serve as a comprehensive list of journals included in at least one of 24 different journal indexes produced by Thomson Reuters. If a journal is included in one or more of these indexes, it appears in the master list.

This is a problem because the barrier for entry into some of the Thomson Reuters indexes is very low. Take the index called Zoological Record, for example. It includes over 4700 journals, including many predatory journals that are unworthy of being included in any quality scholarly index.

The journal shown in the top image above, Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa (IEDEE) is an example. It provides misleading information about the TR Master List.

On its home page, the journal declares,

“IEDEE newly added [sic] to THOMSON REUTERS MASTER JOURNAL LIST

The Master Journal List includes all journal titles covered in Web of Science (WoS). This means that articles published in the journal will be searchable, discoverable and citable in Web of Science.”

This is somewhat misleading. It’s included in one of Thomson Reuters easiest databases to get into, its Emerging Sources Citation Index.

Here’s a screenshot of the journal’s entry on the TR Master List:

As you see, according to the entry, it’s only included in Emerging Sources Citation index, a list I’ve documented as containing junk journals.

I encourage all ministries of education, all universities and colleges, all academic departments, and all funding agencies to stop using the Thomson Reuters Master List as a measure of quality.

The list is filled with dozens or hundreds of low-quality and predatory journals. Using this list as a quality indicator actually promotes the lower quality, open-access journals included in it, for it serves as advertising for them, drawing in authors seeking easy and fast acceptance of their article submissions.

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

A new open-access publisher with the strange name The Scientific Pages launched recently with 65 worthless scholarly journals. All the journals duplicate the coverage of existing subscription and open-access journals.

The publisher gives this as its headquarters address:

The Scientific Pages
1805 N Carson Street
Suite S, Carson City
Nevada 89701, USA

However, this is really the address of The Carson Mail Depot (Web page down now), a rent-a-mailbox company. I don’t know where they’re really based — probably South Asia. The domain name data is blinded.

The publisher is currently spamming for editorial board members, and the spam emails signed by “Nancy Perez,” probably a fake name.

The website text is tortured and ungrammatical. Explaining their copyright policy, they say,

“Any content published with us will hold the copyrights. Thus we recommend to use only with proper citations cited when used. This ensures that the content utilized will be solely for personal purpose and not for commercial usage.

The manuscripts published with the Journal will retain copyrights ownership with authors.”

That makes little sense. Like many predatory publishers, this one tries to place itself as a trusted partner in the open-access movement. Seeking approval, it states ([sic] throughout):

“OA provide many benefits to the scientific community such as, high visibility, retain copyrights, unlimited space constrains for data, rapid publication and dissimilation, high impact, high readership, and citation feasibilities.”

Dissimilation?

I think their journal cover images all include pictures lifted from the internet. Here’s the cover for their journal The Scientific Pages of Pediatrics:

All their journal titles begin with the phrase “The Scientific Pages of … ” To me the term “scientific pages” refers to young employees in the library who fetch science books.

So, when you get a spam invitation to join one of their editorial boards or to submit a paper to one of their journals, I recommend you delete it.

Appendix: List of The Scientific Pages journals as of 2016-02-25
1.The Scientific Pages of Addiction and Rehabilitation
2.The Scientific Pages of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics
3.The Scientific Pages of Agricultural Techniques
4.The Scientific Pages of Alzheimer’s Disease & Dementia
5.The Scientific Pages of Anesthesia and Pain Management
6.The Scientific Pages of Artificial Intelligence
7.The Scientific Pages of Atomic and Nuclear Physics
8.The Scientific Pages of Brain Cancer
9.The Scientific Pages of Brain Disorders
10.The Scientific Pages of Botany
11.The Scientific Pages of Breast Cancer
12.The Scientific Pages of Cervical Cancer
13.The Scientific Pages of Cognitive Science
14.The Scientific Pages of Community Medicine
15.The Scientific Pages of Crop Science
16.The Scientific Pages of Depression and Anxiety
17.The Scientific Pages of Dermatology
18.The Scientific Pages of Diabetology
19.The Scientific Pages of Electronics and Communication
20.The Scientific Pages of Emergency Medicine
21.The Scientific Pages of Endocrinology and Metabolism
22.The Scientific Pages of Family Medicine
23.The Scientific Pages of Forest Research
24.The Scientific Pages of Gastroenterology
25.The Scientific Pages of Geriatric Medicine
26.The Scientific Pages of Gynecology and Obstetrics
27.The Scientific Pages of Health Care
28.The Scientific Pages of Heart
29.The Scientific Pages of Hematology
30.The Scientific Pages of HIV and AIDS
31.The Scientific Pages of Horticulture
32.The Scientific Pages of Immunology
33.The Scientific Pages of Infectious Diseases
34.The Scientific Pages of Information Science
35.The Scientific Pages of Leukemia Research
36.The Scientific Pages of Lung Cancer
37.The Scientific Pages of Metallurgical and Material Engineering
38.The Scientific Pages of Mood Disorders
39.The Scientific Pages of Nephrology
40.The Scientific Pages of Neurodegenerative Disorders
41.The Scientific Pages of Neuro Oncology
42.The Scientific Pages of Nursing
43.The Scientific Pages of Opthalmology
44.The Scientific Pages of Oral Cancer
45.The Scientific Pages of Oral Health
46.The Scientific Pages of Orthopedics and Rheumatism
47.The Scientific Pages of Otolaryngology
48.The Scientific Pages of Pancreatic Cancer
49.The Scientific Pages of Pediatrics
50.The Scientific Pages of Pediatric Neurology
51.The Scientific Pages of Physical medicine
52.The Scientific Pages of Plant Pathology
53.The Scientific Pages of Psychiatry
54.The Scientific Pages of Pulmonology
55.The Scientific Pages of Public Health
56.The Scientific Pages of Regenerative Medicine
57.The Scientific Pages of Renal Cancer
58.The Scientific Pages of Rice Research
59.The Scientific Pages of Robotics
60.The Scientific Pages of Sleep Medicine
61.The Scientific Pages of Soil and Water Science
62.The Scientific Pages of Sports Medicine
63.The Scientific Pages of Translational Medicine
64.The Scientific Pages of Translational Neuroscience
65.The Scientific Pages of Vaccines