Admin - page 32

Life Science Journal has been prospectively delisted from Scopus.

I received a confirmation that Life Science Journal — published jointly by Marsland Press and Zhengzhou University — has been prospectively delisted from the Scopus database. The reasons for the delisting were not stated in the confirmation, but it’s easy to find problems with this journal.

On its website, the journal claims to have an impact factor of 0.165, and this claim is confirmed; the journal’s 2012 impact factor is indeed 0.165. What will its 2013 impact factor be, when the new impact factor data is released soon? [Update, 2014-07-30: This journal has lost its impact factor. ]

The impact factor might explain this journal’s large number of issues and articles. Formerly a quarterly, the journal now publishes monthly, and it publishes many articles per issue.

The journal is currently publishing volume 11 (2014) [see above]. Volume 11 number 1 has 60 articles in it!

Additionally, the journal is publishing 12 special issues in 2014, in addition to the 12 regular issues.

We’ve seen this before — a journal gets an impact factor and then goes crazy, accepting as many articles as possible to earn more money.

The article processing charge per article is US $640. Somebody is making a lot of easy money here. Also, judging from the articles, no copyediting is being done, as it appears the articles are being published as they are received.

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

RMS says:

July 22, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Browsing through an issue I notice a major problem: the journal accepts articles of any topic, everything ranging from environmental science, to civil engineering, to military history… Do these titles sound like “life science”?

1-) “General V. Anders’ Polish Army in Central Asia”
2-) “Strengthing [sic] Steel Frames by Using Post Tensioned Cable”
3-) “Mechanics of Bond Behaviour at the Joint of Normal Strength Concrete Intersecting Beam”
4-) “Uranium content measurement in drinking water for Some region in Sudan using Laser Flourometry Technique”

Jeffrey Beall says:

July 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Excellent observation! Thank you. No, these do not sound like life sciences articles to me.

Bull’s eye says:

July 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Notice how papers just “disappear”. For example, paper No. 15, in volume 11, No. 10 (2014):
http://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/life1110/
A paper is supposed to be there with pages 89-97, which suggests that this could have been a duplicate paper, or maybe some other issue. However, the lack of any trace of what was published goes against the scholarly principles of retractions as advocated by COPE. Marsland Press is one of the worst plagues in OA publishing, in my opinion, and one of the most concerning aspects in many of its journals are these “disappearing acts” of papers: one day there, the next gone.

Damien says:

July 22, 2014 at 10:40 AM

See the special issue http://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/life1106s. there is a paper on “Budgeting of police in the context of “crime cost”, a paper on “Corporate culture and socio-psychological climate of the organization”, a paper on “Trade legislation problems of the Moscow city”; and so on.
LSJ become ” the world journal of everything”!!!

P Canning says:

July 23, 2014 at 6:03 AM

open access publishing is NOT beneficial for anyone especially authors. it is just a money making scheme for some individuals and groups…just like Nigerian scams. good luck to people who publish in open access journals, as for me i will stick with the tried and tested publishers like Elsevier, Springer, Taylor and Francis etc. I applaud Mr. Reall for doing such a commendable work.

Farid says:

July 23, 2014 at 8:21 AM

P Canning

I think scientific community must represent their concern about so called predatory journals whether they are OA or not and help people in Scopus and ISI get rid of them. This way we have better chance to select good quality journals no matter they are OA or not. These days, it is easy to find predatory journals from OA and not OA whether they are published by a well known publisher or by a newly greedy guy.

AReader says:

July 27, 2014 at 5:06 AM

I would argue that Nature is a predatory journal trading on its high impact factor to publish large amounts of nonsense. And if you don’t believe me, try reading Nature from even five years ago and see how many articles were later shown to be false or at least unlikely to be true.

The problem is not open-source. The problem is the academic star system that forces people to produce articles, any articles, in order to keep their funding and jobs. Thus the incentives to publish outweigh caution over

This state of affairs has broken the peer review system, buried perfectly good science and unjustifiably promoted bad. And the stench is starting to be noticed by the taxpayers, the people ultimately funding this vicious circle.

At the end of this is the predatory journal, making money from publishing without sufficient damnation.

Obinna says:

August 2, 2014 at 8:14 AM

Dear Scholars,
Would this journal as well as publisher be classified to be of Asian origin and predatory? If yes, what were the criteria used to index it scopus in the first place? And why? Why is there no clear reason stated for delisting the journal? I encountered a similar scenario with web of science concerning two nigeria-based medical journals that were delisted without any clear reason given. I then asked thomson reuters for the reason behind their exclusion from their database and they responded by saying that it was as a result of low citation rate and some other reasons. Please, some other what exactly??? The current trend raises the question of bias towards third world publishing efforts by first world establishments. In the traditional publishing era, authors from developing regions were passive contributors and active consumers of scientific literature. But in the OA publishing era, they have become active participants and contributors to the global scientific literature. All of a sudden, the scientific publishing atmosphere is now polluted, why is this so????

Mobilea says:

August 2, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Dear Obinna: I totally agree with you. Delisting from Scopus mush have a strong reasons, not only someone’s desire to dampen the journal.
Mobilea

Scientific Research Publishing has published many articles by controversial researcher Mohamed El Naschie and his band of followers.

Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) says it has offices in China and Southern California, and like many questionable open-access publishers, it is registered in Delaware (and I wonder if the firm reports its income to the IRS).

This publisher has been on my list for a long time, and I recently described a case in which a controversial article about the Fukushima nuclear fallout was published in one of its many journals.

M. El Naschie is listed as the sole author on at least twenty articles in SCIRP journals. In my opinion, they are all nonsense and pseudo-science. El Naschie has reportedly been blacklisted from arXive, prohibited from posting preprints there.

Claimed Discovery of the Nature of Dark Energy

There are also many articles in SCIRP journals written by followers of El Naschie. These articles, like the one pictured here, typically report again on El Naschie’s findings. The one shown in the screenshot above reports on the “discovery” of the nature of dark energy. If such a discovery had truly been made, it would have been one of the major scientific discoveries of all time.

The nature of this published content is particularly surprising, given that H. Barry Zhou, the founder of Scientific Research Publishing, holds a Ph.D. in Space Plasma Physics from the University of Maryland at College Park. Why would someone with such credentials allow the publication of so many questionable articles claiming to have discovered the nature of dark energy and other such discoveries not accepted by the overwhelming majority of mainstream scientists?

Dr. Zhou, are you proud of publishing scholarly articles that fall way outside mainstream science? Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) has become a scholarly vanity press, in my opinion.

I am aware that El Naschie was the editor-in-chief of an Elsevier journal in the past. However, scientists protested, and his editorship was ended. I think additional, similar action is needed in this case.

In conclusion, if you want your work to appear in journals from a scientific press that has published many of the questionable scientific works of Mohamed El Naschie and his followers, then Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is the publisher to select.

Appendix: I’ve included a list of some of Mohamed El Naschie’s articles published in SCIRP journals below.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=32969

o A Fractal Menger Sponge Space-Time Proposal to Reconcile Measurements and Theoretical Predictions of Cosmic Dark Energy
o A Resolution of Cosmic Dark Energy via a Quantum Entanglement Relativity Theory
o A Rindler-KAM Spacetime Geometry and Scaling the Planck Scale Solves Quantum Relativity and Explains Dark Energy
o A Unified Newtonian-Relativistic Quantum Resolution of the Supposedly Missing Dark Energy of the Cosmos and the Constancy of the Speed of Light
o Calculating the Exact Experimental Density of the Dark Energy in the Cosmos Assuming a Fractal Speed of Light
o Capillary Surface Energy Elucidation of the Cosmic Dark Energy—Ordinary Energy Duality
o Cosmic Dark Energy from ‘t Hooft’s Dimensional Regularization and Witten’s Topological Quantum Field Pure Gravity
o Dark Energy from Kaluza-Klein Spacetime and Noether’s Theorem via Lagrangian Multiplier Method
o Einstein’s General Relativity and Pure Gravity in a Cosserat and De Sitter-Witten Spacetime Setting as the Explanation of Dark Energy and Cosmic Accelerated Expansion
o Entanglement of E8E8 Exceptional Lie Symmetry Group Dark Energy, Einstein’s Maximal Total Energy and the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Proposal as the Explanation for Dark Energy
o From Chern-Simon, Holography and Scale Relativity to Dark Energy
o From Yang-Mills Photon in Curved Spacetime to Dark Energy Density
o Nash Embedding of Witten’s M-Theory and the Hawking-Hartle Quantum Wave of Dark Energy
o Pinched Material Einstein Space-Time Produces Accelerated Cosmic Expansion
o Quantum Entanglement as a Consequence of a Cantorian Micro Spacetime Geometry
o Quantum Entanglement: Where Dark Energy and Negative Gravity plus Accelerated Expansion of the Universe Comes from
o The Hydrogen Atom Fractal Spectra, the Missing Dark Energy of the Cosmos and Their Hardy Quantum Entanglement
o The hyperbolic Extension of Sigalotti-Hendi-Sharifzadeh’s Golden Triangle of Special Theory of Relativity and the Nature of Dark Energy
o The Meta Energy of Dark Energy
o The Missing Dark Energy of the Cosmos from Light Cone Topological Velocity and Scaling of the Planck Scale
o Topological-Geometrical and Physical Interpretation of the Dark Energy of the Cosmos as a “Halo” Energy of the Schrödinger Quantum Wave
o What Is the Missing Dark Energy in a Nutshell and the Hawking-Hartle Quantum Wave Collapse
o Why E Is Not Equal to mc2

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

Comments:

AlexH says:

July 31, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Mohamed El Naschie also have some solid work, not just self- and pay-to-published articles. He published with Pergamon Press, in Springer, de Gruyter and other Elsevier journals beside C, S. & F so he is not a complete fraud, just someone who blew an academic bubble around himself which is constantly being poked from the outside.

Ole, Ole! says:

July 31, 2014 at 11:33 AM

What academic credentials are needed to judge papers on the cosmos, space plasma physics, Einstein’s E = mc2, and dark energy? What exactly is pseudo-science?

Jeanne A. Pawitan says:

July 31, 2014 at 11:24 AM

I am not an expert in physics, so I can not judge his articles. However, in my opinion, there is a possibility that Mohamed El Naschie has a thought beyond the thought of an ordinary scientist.

We have learnt about Galileo Galilei, who was labelled as heresy, because his peers can not understand and can not follow his thought, but now his theory is widely accepted.

So, who knows, the same will happen with Mohamed El Naschie, as his hypothesis may be proven to be true in the future, but before it happens, he will be bullied by everyone.

Quark says:

August 4, 2014 at 3:16 AM

Please not Galileo again ! It was inquisition which has “judged” him because of his work not lined up with religious beliefs, nothing to do with his “peer”. This is a plain sophistical comparison.

Dan Riley says:

August 7, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Galileo wasn’t persecuted because his peers didn’t understand him–he was persecuted because the Catholic Church found his conclusions uncomfortable, and he made some powerful political and theological (but not scientific!) enemies.

Galileos are very rare–for every actual Galileo, there are thousands and thousands of inappropriate Galileo comparisons. This is one of them.

For El Naschie to be shown to be correct, he would need to have a coherent theory capable of being tested. I am a physicist, and I have read several of his papers on relativity and dark matter. My professional judgement is that the papers I read fall in to the infamous “not even wrong” category–they are confused nonsense, not testable physical theories.

This article, “Changes in confirmed plus borderline cases of congenital hypothyroidism in California as a function of environmental fallout from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown” was published in the Open Journal of Pediatrics, a journal published by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), a publisher included on my list of questionable publishers.

The article reports that fallout from the Fukushima nuclear accident increased the number of confirmed congenital hypothyroidism cases in the population studied.

The article’s findings were reported in the media, including a report on ABC 10 in San Diego and Yahoo! News, among others.

However, some independent researchers are questioning the study’s validity. According to Dr. Yuri Hiranuma:

“The actual count of confirmed cases of congenital hypothyroidism (CH) from the California Public Health Department does not match the authors’ count because they disregarded the actual count given to them. Instead, the authors (1) invented their own definition of confirmed cases of CH, (2) misrepresented the real definition of CH, and (3) invented a fictitious diagnostic category of CH which they call “borderline cases. Unfortunately, the study is widely disseminated as the “proof” of the effect of Fukushima fallout on the west coast.”

Dr. Hiranuma wrote up her objections to the study and submitted them as a letter to the journal. However, the journal refused to publish her letter. The letter has since been published on this blog. They sent her this response:

Next, Dr. Hiranuma sent an email asking why the letter would not be published, and she got this reply:

I think one reason they won’t publish the letter is they only want to publish revenue articles — they don’t want to publish a letter for free. The following email confirms this:

Analysis: This is a case of several researchers who are concerned about health effects of radiation exposure using a predatory journal to publish questionable science that bolsters their position on the adverse health effects of low level radiation exposure. Upon publication of the article, they were successful in getting some media outlets to report their findings, and the findings were seen as legitimate because they were published in a scholarly journal. The journal’s publisher remains faithful to its customers (the paper’s authors, who paid to have their article published) and refuses to retract the article or publish a standard response to it. The academic record remains uncorrected.

I recommend viewing the following video, which provides a pitch-perfect explanation of the situation:

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

Comments:

Susan Ariew says:

April 29, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Amazing. This story should go to those news outlets who published the results of the study initially, though I wonder, too, if they will care.

Bill Williams says:

April 29, 2014 at 12:55 PM

This is certainly a scary example of the dangers of predatory publishing.

Bill Williams says:

April 29, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Yes, this is a scary example of the dangers of predatory journals.

bill says:

April 30, 2014 at 3:07 AM

Duplicate posts: I have wondered why we have seen various near-duplicate posts here. Now it’s happened to me, I see why – its an occasional hiccough with Wordpad: sometimes the platform doesn’t appear to have received our post (as happened to me yesterday) so after some time with nothing appearing, one tries a second time to post the same contribution. Then some time later both appear.

Jeff Shrager says:

April 29, 2014 at 9:55 AM

So, youtube is now a scholarly publisher? I guess at least it’s open access and doesn’t charge for publication. I’m guessing that it’s peer review process leaves something to be desired.

Why don’t they just publish the rebuttal in another journal?

roryrobertsonformerfattie says:

April 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM

MDPI’s Nutrients journal wouldn’t publish my letter either, but underperforming Editor-in-Chief Professor Peter Howe in Australia was happy to publish an “Editorial” slamming me for pointing out that his journal’s quality control was incompetent if not non-existent: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/4/4/258

In part because of this nonsense, Jeffrey Beale has added MDPI to his widely appreciated List of Questionable Publishers: https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/18/chinese-publishner-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/

It will be interesting to see what comes from the University of Sydney’s formal research-misconduct inquiry into its low-GI advocates’ extraordinarily faulty – and self-published – Australian Paradox research: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/LettersProfTrewhella.pdf

Here’s Australian national radio’s February 2014 investigation of the matter: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-02-09/5239418

And here’s my submission to the University of Sydney’s formal research-misconduct inquiry: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/RRsubmission2inquiry.pdf

Marco says:

April 30, 2014 at 8:36 AM

Mangano & Sherman have form, and it is not just OA Publishers they use. Take this paper:
http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
Which is published by Baywood. Its analysis has been heavily criticized for similar reasons as this current paper.

Alex SL says:

April 30, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Wow, that is an interesting aspect of not only predatory but open access publishing in general that I had completely overlooked so far. If you run your journal by collecting fees for publication, publishing rebuttals, corrections or letters for free is rather… inconsistent. Where does one draw the line? One could even say that accepting such a letter for free sets a bad precedent in that economic model. And of course retracting something would have to involve reimbursing the publication fee…

The incentives for publishers in an open access system are really problematic. If only we had the political will to create a non-profit publishing system with decent quality control and the right incentives in place instead of trying to “solve” the profiteering problem by shifting the profiteering from reading fees to publishing fees!

Frederick Guy says:

May 8, 2014 at 3:22 AM

This would be a nice point if it were true that subscription-funded publishers did routinely publish letters. Some will publish responses which are essentially mini-papers – others will not even do that, and very, very few will publish letters which, e.g., call out simple logical fallacies or sloppy work. I think it’s mostly because editors would rather not have their own bad judgements publicized. That, in any case, is how it stands in economics and some other social science fields with which I am familiar – unless it’s so different in your field, don’t blame open access.

Susan Ariew says:

June 18, 2014 at 7:27 AM

I warned one of my faculty off of publishing with SCIRP this morning. This blog post helped to explain why journals from SCIRP are not considered reputable OA journals.

Jeffrey Beall says:

June 18, 2014 at 7:28 AM

Thanks, Susan!

Roger says:

October 28, 2014 at 3:37 AM

anti-nuclear activists thrive on these predatory journals. The three authors of this article all have been long known to be phony scientists. All are colleagues of Leuren K Moret who has filled YouTube, as has Christopher Charles Busby with false claims about Fukushima. Moret really is on the edge, she claims that the earthquake that triggered the tsunami was caused by US tectonic warfare using the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility at the University of Alaska. Author Busby shares the stage in one video with Moret. Janette Sherman claims that she measured high radiation near the Pentagon on 9/11, proof that the attack was actually by a depleted uranium tipped missile. She also edited NY Academy of Sciences controversial book by Russian pseudoscientists about Chernobyl that claim millions of resultant cancers. Busby claims uranium and depleted uranium are incredibly diabolic and claims to have done epidemiology studies to prove that along with another colleague Mozghan Savabiesafahani who falsely claimed to be a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Michigan doing work for the World Health Organization. These liars and the journals that they choose to post their lies need to be fully exposed and the news media convinced that they are lying for their supper.

Martha McCaughey says:

July 19, 2016 at 11:50 AM

The scary thing is the journalists often simply Google to find experts on the topic they are covering, and these online OA journals pop up in those searches. Journalists as well as current college students and instructors need to know how to tell the difference between questionable, predatory academic journals and real, credible ones.

Research India Publications (also misspelled as Research India Publication) is a massive subscription publisher based in Delhi, India. It publishes over 180 journals, and you have to pay if you want to read them — or publish in them.

That’s correct — this is a toll-access (subscription) publisher that also charges authors to publish in its journals. Worse, it even requires authors to transfer copyright of their articles to the publisher.

The publisher also lies to authors, telling them that their work will be open access, claiming, “All abstracts and full text available free on-line to all main Universities / institutions worldwide.” But this isn’t true. If you try to access the content, you are asked for a login and password.

Because it’s a subscription publisher, Research India Publications is not on my list, which includes only open-access publishers. Still, in my opinion, scholars should not submit papers to commercial publishers that charge both authors for submission and readers for access, especially publishers like this one that also require copyright transfer.

I strongly recommend that all scholars refuse to submit their work to Research India Publications.

Appendix 1: An acceptance letter sent to an author informing him of the publishing fees and copyright transfer. The letter is anonymized.

Appendix 2: List of Research India Publication journals as of March 12, 2014
1.Advance in Applied Computational Mechanics [AACM] 2249-4278
2.Advances in Aerospace Science and Applications [AASA] 2277-3223
3.Advances in Algebra [AA] 0973-6964
4.Advances in Applied Mathematical Analysis [AAMA] 0973-5313
5.Advances in Applied Mathematical Biosciences [AAMB] 2248-9983
6.Advances in Computational Sciences and Technology [ACST] 0974-4738
7.Advances in Dynamical Systems and Applications [ADSA] 0973-5321
8.Advances in Electronic and Electric Engineering [AEEE] 2231-1297
9.Advances in Fuzzy Mathematics [AFM] 0973-533X
10.Advances in Theoretical and Applied Mathematics [ATAM] 0973-4554
11.Advances in Wireless and Mobile Communications [AWMC] 0973-6972
12.Arab Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences [AJMMS]
13.Communication in Applied Geometry [CAG] 2249-4286
14.Communication in differential and Difference Equation [CDDE] 0973-6301
15.Current Development in Artificial Intelligencee [CDAI] 0976-5832
16.Developmental Microbiology and Molecular Biology [DMMB] 0976-5867
17.Global Journal of Academic Librarianship [GJAL]
18.Global Journal of Applied Agricultural Research [GJAAR] 2248-9991
19.Global Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences [GJAES] 2248-9932
20.Global Journal of Biotechnology and Biochemistry Research [GJBBR] 2248-9894
21.Global Journal of Business Management and Information Technology [GJBMIT] 2278-3679
22.Global Journal of Computational Intelligence Research [GJCIR] 2249-0000
23.Global Journal of Computational Science and Mathematics [GJCSM] 2248-9908
24.Global Journal of Difference Equations [GJDE] 2249-4235
25.Global Journal of Dynamical System and Applications [GJDSA] 2249-4294
26.Global Journal of Economics and Social Development [GJESD]
27.Global Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies [GJEAPS]
28.Global Journal of Electronic and Communication Engg. & Technology [GJECET]
29.Global Journal of Electronic and Communication Research [GJECR] 2249-314X
30.Global Journal of Engineering Research and Technology [GJERT] 2249-3107
31.Global Journal of Finance and Economic Management [GJFEM] 2249-3158
32.Global Journal of Finance and Management [GJFM] 0975-6477
33.Global Journal of Management and Business Studies [GJMBS] 2248-9878
34.Global Journal of Marketing Management and Research [GJMMR] 2250-3242
35.Global Journal of Mathematical Science: Theory and Practical [GJMS] 0974-3200
36.Global Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences [GJMMS] 0972-9836
37.Global Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Education [GJPSE]
38.Global Journal of Political Science [GJPS]
39.Global Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics [GJPAM] 0973-1768
40.Global Journal of Retail Management [GJRM] 2277-3231
41.Global Journal of Sociology and Anthropology [GJSA]
42.Global Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics Sciences [GJTAMS] 2248-9916
43.International Journal of Advanced Biotechnology Research [IJABR] 2249-3166
44.International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Technology [IJACST] 2249-3123
45.International Journal of Advanced Materials Science [IJAMS] 2231-1211
46.International Journal of Advanced Mechanical Engineering [IJAME] 2250-3234
47.International Journal of Advanced Software Engineering [IJASE] 2249-3069
48.International Journal of Agricultural Economics and Management [IJAEM]
49.International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science Technology [IJAFST] 2249-3050
50.International Journal of Applied Agricultural Research [IJAAR] 0974-4754
51.International Journal of Applied Biotechnology and Biochemistry [IJABB] 2248-9886
52.International Journal of Applied Chemistry [IJAC] 0973-1792
53.International Journal of Applied Computational Science & Mathematics [IJACSM]
54.International Journal of Applied Engineering Research [IJAER] 1087-1090
55.International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences [IJAES] 0973-6077
56.International Journal of Applied Mathematical Sciences [JAMS] 0973-0176
57.International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics [IJAMM] 0973-0184
58.International Journal of Applied Physics [IJAP]
59.International Journal of Biomedical and Healthcare Science [IJBHS]
60.International Journal of Biotechnology and Bioengineering Research [IJBBR] 2231-1238
61.International journal of Business Administration and Management [IJBAM] 2278-3660
62.International Journal of Business and Rural Development Studies [IJBRDS] 2277-3207
63.International Journal of Business Management and Leadership [IJBML] 2231-122X
64.International Journal of Chemical Engineering Research [IJChER] 0975-6442
65.International Journal of Chemistry and Applications [IJCA] 0974-3111
66.International Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering [IJCCE] 2248-9924
67.International Journal of Childhood and Society [IJCS]
68.International Journal of Civil Engineering and Applications [IJCEA] 2249-426X
69.International Journal of Civil Engineering Research [IJCER] 2278-3652
70.International Journal of Civil Mechanical Engineering [IJCME] 2250-3218
71.International Journal of Communication Engineering and Technology [IJCET] 2277-3150
72.International Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics [IJCAM] 1819-4966
73.International Journal of Computational Intelligence Research [IJCIR] 0974-1259
74.International Journal of Computational Physical Sciences [IJCPS] 0976-5875
75.International Journal of Computational Science and Engineering [IJCSE] 2249-4251
76.International Journal of Computational Science and Mathematics [IJCSM] 0974-3189
77.International Journal of Computer and Internet Security [IJCIS] 0974-2247
78.International Journal of Consumer Policy [IJCP] 2278-3644
79.International Journal of Dental Research and Technologies [IJDRT]
80.International Journal of Difference Equations [IJDE] 0973-6069
81.International Journal of Digital Libraries and Knowledge Management [IJDLKM]
82.International Journal of Dynamics of Fluids [IJDF] 0973-1784
83.International Journal of Economic and Management Strategy [JEMS] 2278-3636
84.International Journal of Economic Research and Networking [IJERN]
85.International Journal of Education and Information Studies [IJEIS]
86.International Journal of Educational Administration [IJEA] 0976-5883
87.International Journal of Educational Planning and Administration [IJEPA] 2249-3093
88.International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering [IJEC] 0974-2190
89.International Journal of Electrical Engineering [IJEE] 0974-2158
90.International Journal of Electronic and Communication Research [IJECR] 2231-1246
91.International Journal of Electronic and Electrical Engineering [IJEEE] 0974-2174
92.International Journal of Electronic Engineering and Technology [IJEET] 2249-3085
93.International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering [IJECE] 0974-2166
94.International Journal of Electronics Engineering Research [IJEER] 0975-6450
95.International Journal of Electronics Networks, Devices and Field [IJENDF] 0974-2182
96.International Journal of Engineering and Manufacturing Science [IJEMS] 2249-3115
97.International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology [IJERT] 0974-3154
98.International Journal of Engineering Studies [IJES] 0975-6469
99.International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Management [IJEEM] 2231-1319
100.International Journal of Environmental Research and Development [IJERD] 2249-3131
101.International Journal of Environmental Sci. Development & Monitoring [IJESDM] 2231-1289
102.International Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences [IJFAS] 2248-9975
103.International Journal of Fluids Engineering [IJFE] 0974-3138
104.International Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics and Systems [IJFMS] 2248-9940
105.International Journal of Genetics Engineering and Biotechnology [IJGEB] 0974-3073
106.International Journal of Horticultural and Crop Science Research [IJHCSR] 2249-4243
107.International Journal of Hospitality Administration and Management [IJHAM]
108.International Journal of Human Resource Development & Management [IJHRDM]
109.International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences [IJHSS] 2250-3226
110.International Journal of Industrial & Production Engineering & Tech. [IJIPET] 2249-4219
111.International Journal of Industrial Electronics and Control [IJIEC] 0974-2220
112.International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Technology [IJIET] 0974-3146
113.International Journal of Information and Computation Technology [IJICT] 0974-2239
114.International Journal of Information Science and Education [IJISE] 2231-1262
115.International Journal of Information Sciences and Application [IJISA] 0974-2255
116.International Journal of Information Technology and Library Science [IJITLS]
117.International Journal of Instrumentation Science and Engineering [JISE] 2278-5825
118.International Journal of Internet and Computer Security [IJICS] 0974-2247
119.International Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Tech. [IJKMIT]
120.International Journal of Lakes and Rivers [IJLR] 0973-4570
121.International Journal of Librarianship and Administration [IJLA] 2231-1300
122.International Journal of Library Automation, Networking and Consortia [IJLANC]
123.International Journal of Management and International Business Studies [IJMIBS] 2277-3177
124.International Journal of Material Sciences and Technology [IJMST] 2249-3077
125.International Journal of Materials Physics [IJMP] 0974-309X
126.International Journal of Materials Science [IJoMS] 0973-4589
127.International Journal of Mathematical Education [IJoME] 0973-6948
128.International Journal of Mathematics Research [IJMR] 0976-5840
129.International Journal of Mechanical and Material Sciences Research [IJMMSR]
130.International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Research [IJMER] 2249-0019
131.International Journal of Mechanics and Solids [IJM&S] 0973-1881
132.International Journal of Mechanics and Thermodynamics [IJMT] 2278-361X
133.International Journal of Mechanics Structural [IJMS] 0974-312X
134.International Journal of Microcircuits and Electronic [IJME] 0974-2204
135.International Journal of Mobile Communication & Networking [IJMCN] 2231-1203
136.International Journal of Mobile Communication Networking [IJMCN] 2231-1203
137.International Journal of Molecular Genetics [IJMG] 2249-4227
138.International Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology [IJNN] 0974-3081
139.International Journal of Nanotechnology and Application [IJNA] 0973-631X
140.International Journal of Networking & Computer Engineering [IJNCE] 0975-6485
141.International Journal of Networks and Applications [IJN&A] 0976-5859
142.International Journal of Nursing Sciences and Practice [IJNSP]
143.International Journal of Oceans and Oceanography [IJOO] 0973-2667
144.International Journal of Operations Management & Information Tech. [IJOMIT] 2278-3628
145.International Journal of Operations Management and Services [JOMS] 2277-3193
146.International Journal of Petroleum Science and Technology [IJPST] 0973-6328
147.International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Practice [IJPSP]
148.International Journal of Pharmacy and Drug Research [IJPDR]
149.International Journal of Philosophy and Social Sciences [IJPSS]
150.International Journal of Photonics [IJP] 0974-2212
151.International Journal of Physics and Applications [IJPA] 0974-3103
152.International Journal of Psychology and Counseling [IJPC] 2278-5833
153.International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematical Sciences [IJPAMS] 0972-9828
154.International Journal of Pure and Applied Physics [IJPAP] 0973-1776
155.International Journal of Quality Assurance and Management [IJQAM]
156.International Journal of Semiconductor Science & Technology [IJSST] 0975-6493
157.International Journal of Software Engineering [IJSE] 0974-3162
158.International Journal of Statistics and Analysis [IJSA] 2248-9959
159.International Journal of Statistics and Systems [IJSS] 0973-2675
160.International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Computer Sciences [IJTACS]
161.International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics [IJTAM] 0973-6085
162.International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education [IJVTE]
163.International Journal of Wireless Communication and Simulation [IJWCS] 2231-1254
164.International Journal of Wireless Networks and Applications [IJWNA] 2250-3250
165.International Journal of Wireless Networks and Communications [IJWNC] 0975-6507
166.International Journal: Mathematical Manuscripts [IJMM] 0974-2883
167.International Journals of Biotechnology and Biochemistry [IJBB] 0974-4762
168.International Review of Applied Engineering Research [IRAER] 2248-9967
169.International Review of Business and Finance [IRBF] 0976-5891
170.International Review of Foreign Trade and Policy [IRFTP]
171.Internatioznal Journal of Information Science and Application [IJISA] 0974-2255
172.JK Journal of Management and Technology [JKJMT] 0975-0924
173.Journal of Applied Mathematics and Fluid Mechanics [JAMFM] 0974-3170
174.Journal of Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics [JCIB] 0973-385X
175.Journal of Computer Science and Application [JCSA] 2231-1270
176.Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications [JNAA]
177.Journal of Wavelet Theory and Applications [JWTA] 0973-6336
178.Mathematical Modelling and Applied Computing [MMAC] 0973-6093
179.Mathematics Applied in Science and Technology [MAST] 0973-6344

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

Comments:

Jeff Shrager says:

March 18, 2014 at 9:37 AM

I don’t know…Their prices are, at least compared to “real” journals, pretty modest, and there is some logic to charging both the reader and the author, thus charging whomever one delivers service to. They are also totally up front about the prices, listing the page charge ($25/page) clearly in the information for authors page. (Compare PLoS ONE which charges, last time I looked, order $1500 to the author.) And it’s is, or used to be, typical to require copyright assignment. So, this doesn’t look too terribly egregious to me.

Ken Lanfear says:

March 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Except for the lying part you allege, charging authors for publishing — page charges — is a fairly standard practice with subscription journals.

Jeffrey Beall says:

March 18, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Even for commercial publishers? Aren’t page charges generally limited to scholarly societies? Can you give an example of a non-society toll-access journal that also imposes page charges? Thanks.

Jeff Shrager says:

March 18, 2014 at 1:50 PM

In a normal market everyone pays for value received. I don’t get why resonable page charges and a reasonable cover price is so despicable, unless you want to unbalance the market, as OA does and put all costs on the author. I’m not saying that this is bad (if I thought it was bad what would I be doing here … not to mention having a dozen OA papers?!) just that it’s putting one’s thumb on the scale, for better or worse.

tekija says:

March 18, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Well, the open access and subscription journal are converging. The mail I got today could equally well be from any open access, predatory journal:

– extremely broad scope
– very large editorial board doing the work
– you can volunteer as an editor
– you can suggest other editors
– except large turnover of manuscripts
– no fee paid – and I very much doubt they will not charge the authors:

This is Wolters-Kluwer (note: I have never reviewed for this journal, so they must be taking contact details of all other WK – or perhaps even Lippincott – publications to spam this message):

“ACADEMIC EDITOR RECRUITMENT:
Join the Editorial Board for Medicine®
As It Transitions To An Important Broad–Spectrum Open Access Journal

Dear Dr. (redacted)

I am pleased to announce that Medicine, a Wolters Kluwer Health publication and one of the most respected and frequently cited journals in general medicine, will transform to an open access journal in 2014. As an open access title, the journal will offer continuous publication, covering a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines. Medicine will cover the latest research and clinical developments in medicine and health sciences.

Medicine is a Medicus/MedLine/PubMed indexed journal, with an Impact Factor of 4.233 as reported in the 2013 ISI Journal Citation Reports (ranking 18th out of 155 General & Internal Medicine titles).

Given both your experience as a reviewer and your area of expertise, Wolters Kluwer Health would like to extend to you an invitation to join the Medicine editorial board as an Academic Editor. In this role, you would play an essential part in ensuring that accepted content is scientifically and ethically sound, and in compliance with standard reporting guidelines.

Objectives for Academic Editors
Supervise the review and adjudication of manuscripts submitted to your area of expertise.
Help communicate the results of peer review to facilitate the revision of the submitted manuscripts.
Help recruit further Academic Editors where submission volume is high.

Remuneration and Term of Office
Academic Editors will serve for a renewable term of 1 year.
There will be no direct financial remuneration, but Academic Editors will be acknowledged for their work on the Journal website.
For more information on Medicine and Open Access, please see our Open Access FAQ.

I sincerely hope that you will join the Editorial Board in this exciting endeavor. To register your interest, please respond via email to Senior Publisher, Duncan MacRae (duncan.macrae@wolterskluwer.com).

Yours,
Duncan A. MacRae
Sr Publisher, Open Access Journals
Wolters Kluwer Health, Medical Research”

Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Copyright © 2014 | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | NIH Public Access Policy

To ensure delivery to your inbox, add info@email.mylwwjournals.com to your address book.
You received this message because you are a valued LWW/WK Health customer, author, or editor.

If you have comments or questions, please do not reply to this e–mail.
Contact us: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, P.O. Box 1620, Hagerstown, MD 21740, 1.800.638.3030?

Liam Mac Liam says:

March 18, 2014 at 12:49 PM

If I have understood your query correctly, Jeffrey, in my field the International Journal of Engineering Education comes to mind:
http://www.ijee.ie/

A researcher agreed to peer-review a manuscript submitted to the Taylor & Francis journal Biocontrol Science and Technology. The researcher is Dr. S.S. Narwal, who is also editor of the toll-access Allelopathy Journal. About a week before the review was due back to the journal, the publisher sent this routine reminder notice to Dr. Narwal:

15-Dec-2013

Dear Dr. S.S. Narwal:

Recently, you kindly agreed to review the above manuscript, entitled “[redacted].” The manuscript is located in your Reviewer Centre at [redacted].

This e-mail is simply a reminder that your review is due in one week. The authors are naturally anxious about the progress on their paper and I would appreciate your help in expediting the review process. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance.

Sincerely,

Mark S. Goettel
Editor-in-Chief
Biocontrol Science and Technology

Now, here is the response to the above email that came from Dr. Narwal’s email account:

From: narwal@allelopathyjournal.org [mailto:narwal@allelopathyjournal.org]
Sent: December-15-13 4:47 AM
To: [redacted]
Subject: Re: Reminder: Manuscript CBST-2013- – Biocontrol Science & Technology

Dear Dr. Mark,

I am too busy to spare time for PEER REVIEW of Mss, however, I can Review if i am paid for this service. If you agree to pay, please tell me amount to be paid per Review?

This unsigned response, apparently from Dr. Narwal himself, generated this strong reaction from the editor of Biocontrol Science and Technology, Mark Goettel:

From: Mark Goettel BST
Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2013 8:22 AM
To: narwal@allelopathyjournal.org
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: RE: Reminder: Manuscript CBST-2013- – Biocontrol Science & Technology

Dear Dr. Narwal,

Wow, that is a surprising request especially from the Chief Editor of an International Journal!! May I ask how much you pay the peer reviewers who provide reviews for your Journal, “Allelopathy Journal”?

You were invited to review this manuscript on 14 November and accepted on 1 December. Now it is acceptable for you to decline because all of a sudden you find yourself too busy, but ask for momentary compensation? Shame on you!

I am copying members of your Editorial Board as well as Editors of other journals to inform them of what I feel is really unethical behaviour for an Editor of an international, peer reviewed journal! I am sure they would like to know what type of journal editor they are associated with!

By the way, I also find it very strange that the only contact information provided for the “International Allelopathy Foundation”, the publisher of this journal to be your own! Does not the foundation have a Board of Directors who should be informed of your unethical behaviour?

Sincerely,

Mark Goettel
Editor-in-Chief
Biocontrol Science & Technology

This letter was copied to all members of the journal’s editorial board, prompting this response from one of them, “I resigned from the Editorial Board of ‘Allelopathy Journal’ in 2009 in utter disgust at the conduct of its affairs.”

Allelopathy Journal is not an open-access journal, but it is questionable. Its masthead (see image above) claims an impact factor of 0.846, but my library’s edition of Journal Citation Reports shows 0.685.

Also, every time I visited the Allelopathy Journal website, it always said “Online Members: 107.” As Mark Goettel hinted at in his letter above, it appears the journal is really a one-man operation, despite its claiming to be published by the so-called International Allelopathy Foundation.

I recommend against submitting papers to Allelopathy Journal and against asking Dr. Narwal to review any manuscripts.

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

Comments:

Samir Hachani says:

December 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I like the strong response of Mark Goettel (especially “the shame on you” ).This is the first time I hear about such an unethical demand and I know the subject ( I have just defended a thesis on peer review and open access). Such a behavior from a “scholar” should be denounced by name !!!!I join Dr Goettel : “You brought shame on knowledge ” .

Jurgen Ziesmann says:

December 24, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Of course it touches on the most unethical point of all science publishing. While the big publishers make record revenue, often asking prohibitive fees to read the articles, those who did all the research, writing, editing, peer review are left without any compensation whatsoever. What is ethical about that? Absolutely nothing!

Alex SL says:

December 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Hm. I find even some of the best journals in my field sometimes play tricks to inflate their perceived Impact Factor. One whose IF oscillates around an impressive 10, where one would not think they need to stoop to such things, did not update the IF listed on the journal website for two years or so because the new ones were a bit lower. Only when a new IF surpassed the old one did they update the website again.

There are people arguing that reviewers should be paid or otherwise rewarded, and I can understand that position. The problem is that he should not have accepted in the first place if he expected remuneration.

moom says:

December 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM

I don’t see it as unethical. All these open access advocates keep going on about how we shouldn’t provide free labor to journal publishers… But he then should have been more upfront about it.

TheGrimReaper says:

December 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Although it appears as if genuine peer review takes place at Allelopathy Journal, fees are only for Narwal’s pocket. There is no organization, only Narwal. I second all comments made above. I have had nothing but unprofessional and irritating experiences with “Prof” SS Narwal. I have submitted three papers to that journal, and withdrew one from review because the PR was so bad. In every single case, this nonsense, Xeroxed standardized response followed:

Dear Author,
Thanks for submitting your Ms to Allelopathy Journal. Please modify the Ms as per following and attached INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS.
NEW INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
Thanks for submitting your Ms (Manuscript) to Allelopathy Journal. Recently we have made changes for Ms submission and revised the INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS. IMPACT FACTOR : I am pleased to inform you that the IMPACT FACTOR of Allelopathy Journal has increased to 0.846. I advise you to Update your Ms as per these INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS and re-submit at allelopathy_2010@yahoo.com.
1. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MS: Allelopathy Journal is INTERNATIONAL SCI JOURNAL with current IMPACT FACTOR OF 0.846, hence, we maintain International Standard for Publication of Mss. Hence, the minimum requirements for submission of Ms are: (i). Should have Results of Lab Bioassay, Pot Culture/ Field Experiemnts. (ii). Identification of Allelochemicals in Donor plant material, its Extracts or Leachates and (iii). Studies with the bioactivity (against plants, insects, nematodes, pathogen related to your research) of these compounds.
2. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS: You have not written the Ms as per Journal Style, Please (i) rewrite the Ms as per attached INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS AND MODEL MSS., (ii). Please send Ms as single File, (iii) Do not insert Tables and Figs in Text, but add after the References, however, indicate their Preferred Position in Text, (iv). Use TIMES ROMAN FONT in Ms. (v). Submit Ms in MS WORD-2003 only.
3. INTERNATIONAL REVIEWERS: To evaluate your Ms, please send the names of 5- INTERNATIONAL REVIEWERS. They should be other than REGIONAL EDITORS of Allelopathy Journal and their names, Postal Address and E.Mail Addresses should be added to Cover letter/ E. Mail of Ms.
4. OUR NEW E.MAIL ADDRESS: Please submit the new Ms at http://us.mc1140.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=allelopathy_2010@yahoo.com
5. YAHOO E.MAIL ADDRESS: We make all Correspondence for Mss by yahoomail, hence, we strongly advise all Authors to open Account in Yahoomail for (i) Easy, (ii) Efficient, (iii) Fast and (iv) to ensure surety of delivery of our mails between us (Journal and Authors). Because many servers in different countries are not compatible with yahoomail, hence, we cannot correspond successfully with such Authors. Sometimes, Authors mail reaches us but our mail neither reaches Author nor return to us.
6. SINGLE FILE: In Ms, add Tables and Figs after References and submit full Ms (Text+ Tables+ Figs) as single File in MS WORD 2003.
7. Please submit Ms as MS WORD file.
8. Please send the Updated Ms within 3 days, so that it could be processed for publication in Allelopathy Journal. Thereafter, we will assign Ms Number to your Ms, for further correspondence with us.
AUTHOR(S) CERTIFICATE
(Please Type on Istitute letter Pad and submit Scanned copy with Ms.)
The Author(s) Certify that (i). The research work presented in this Ms is Original.(ii). Its no part has been copied from research work published earlier.
Author (s) Signature
Full Name:
Postal Adress:
E.Mail address
Date: ……………….

With regards
Prof. S.S. Narwal
Attachment: INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS AND MODEL MSS
Prof. S.S. Narwal
Chief Editor
Allelopathy Journal
# 101, Sector-14
Rohtak- 124 001, INDIA
Ph/Fax: +91 1262-274101
Mobile: +91 9315496321
http//:www.allelopathyjournal.org

It is evident that Thomson Reuters does not assign an impact factor based on the quality of service or on prefessionalism of PR. I do agree that authors should be paid royalties, or be allowed to publish freely and that peer reviewers, that represent the quality control of a paper and journal, should be paid. But, as Mark Goetel indicated, to demand fees after he agreed to review a paper is totally unacceptable and unprofessional.

Harvey Kane says:

December 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Should a reviewer be paid? Interesting. Say I ask a reviewer to review a paper and say to the reviewer that a good review is worth X and a bad one Y or the more detailed the review the more compensation. Do we really want to open that pandora’s box?

Regarding paying the author and or reviewer of an article. There are OA Journals in which the author pays to publish. Is this fair? After all the OA Journals make a pretty penny too!

Jill M says:

January 8, 2014 at 1:54 PM

With regards to Harvey Kane’s comment-while Dr. Narwal’s behavior is unethical, perhaps this brings a new tool to light to use against predatory journals. If a scientist gets a request to serve on the editorial board or review a paper for a bogus journal, send them a bill first! I suggest charging at least the same fee that they charge someone to publish the paper. I wonder how many will agree to pay for our time?
Unfortunately, it is probably illegal to scam the scam artists…

emmabullough says:

February 4, 2014 at 7:29 AM

how would paying for a review effect the peer review process?

Narun says:

June 16, 2014 at 5:30 AM

How could charging for reviewing a paper becomes unethical when article processing charge is ethical ? One mistake which Dr.Narwal did was not finalising the deal before accepting to review a paper. But then this is a question to all reviewers.

tecvoy says:

August 11, 2014 at 2:18 AM

Reviewing is a task, sometimes you spend a lot of time to do it in a good manner, you have to resign some other things. It is not fair that OA journal takes a fee which usually is about 2000-3000 USD and does not pay people who do difficult job.

J. Nemade says:

September 22, 2014 at 1:33 AM

Interesting! As a reviewer myself I have following thoughts.
I find it unethical to change the agreed terms: agreeing to do a free review at first then asking money for it later.
However, I strongly agree that the reviewers should be paid. Reviewing is an intellectual work that takes time and can only be done by a small group of highly qualified/skilled people. They have worked for it. It does have a material value.
The publisher do a business publishing. They pay themselves, make profits, pay their staff and so on. They charge for online download of papers. They also ask for a publication fees in some cases. Why not the reviewers get paid ?
I think the authors need to redfine their stratigies and send their MSs to Open Access Journals.

Harvey Kane says:

September 22, 2014 at 10:48 AM

If you want to charge for reviewing make that very clear when accepting. Will you have a fee scale for the degree of reviewing done? Reading an article is an intellectual endeavour too. Should the reader of an article be paid? If the reader decides to cite an article should the reader be paid for that too?

Are you inferring that Open Access Journals do not review?

You do know that someone is paying for publishing the OA article and that money is being made.

J. Nemade says:

September 23, 2014 at 4:57 AM

Yes. The terms should be made clear before one accepts the responsibility. I indicated so.

A reader does not contribute to the article’s betterment, hence shall not be paid.

My thoughts:
1. If the reader cites the article, no payment required.
2 If the reader cites the article AND the second generation reader purchses (in various forms e.g. download) the article, the citer shall get paid.
3. This can only be true if you can trace the links.
4. Above 1-3 is totally not related to whether the reviewer shall be paid or not.

A fee scale for reviewing is also possible. (e.g. amount per page/word/figure/table) The system will get evolved at its own if we start doing things.
This againis true only if we wish to start doing it in the first place.

When I review my motivation level does vary with what useful I am getting out of it (money, knowledge, etc) against what I am putting in (in this case mainly time)

Let’s hear the other side also: Why a reviewer shall not be paid (other than the historical fact) ?

Harvey Kane says:

September 23, 2014 at 7:07 AM

If I pay you, you have to perform. You have to meet deadlines and make the article more valuable in a measurable way. Thus, I need someone reviewing your review. Say the author or the reviewer of the review (another layer in the system) says what the reviewer says is just wrong. It is shown that what the reviewer says is wrong. Do I have legal recourse?

To use an analogy. I think all those who volunteer should be paid. Even charitable oganizations make enough money and some extra to pay staff and put some in the bank.

Additionally, the costs associated with a paid reviewer system would be passed on to either the subscriber, article purchaser, or OA author.

There is no free lunch!

J. Nemade says:

September 23, 2014 at 10:54 PM

I think we both thinking in the same direction.

“If I pay you, you have to perform…. measureable way”. The reviewers are/have been performing, following deadlines, but aren’t getting paid. There is no measurable way defined so far, and reviewer community is not the community who can do that. Can we work towards a measurable way ??

“Reviewer of the review”: The idea is very good, however, we don’t have them today as well. We trust that the reviewer was doing his/her job ethically. And we have more than one reviewer so we have statistics to get guided from.

“Volunteers getting paid”: A volunteer by definition is doing their jobs free of cost. Shall / do we have a second layer of system to check if the volunteer has done his/her job correctly ?

In a case where the “volunteer” gets paid, will the job be done in a better way and faster ? I would say: better – very likely, faster – definitely.

Now the fact is all reviewers are volunteers, may be because there is no second option available to them at present.

Can we change it ? More importantly do we want to change it ?

Lastly: “There is no free lunch”. Definitely agreed. However, the reviewers don’t get their share of the lunch they worked for.