but you can be sure this has some truth behind it.
i mean i'm controversial medical-college educated dr cyberdemon
so
This looks suspiciously like an attempted argument from authority, dr cyberdemon.
https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/10/15/myst ... -journals/
Ahem...I'm not at all sure of it's veracity, actually.
Mysterious Publisher Launches with 44 Journals
ddd
Not an original name.
I received several tips recently about a large, new open-access publisher called Open Science. I have added this publisher to my list and recommend that researchers ignore the spam they are likely to receive – sooner or later – from this publisher.
The two main problems with this publisher that I observe are deceit and lack of transparency. In terms of deceit, this publisher tries to make prospective authors and readers believe that it is based on Park Avenue in New York. The address it gives there is that of a mail-forwarding service.
dddd
Park Avenue? Not likely.
We are left with no information about the true location of this publisher and why it wants to hide the true location. Also, the site gives no phone number, despite its invitation to call.
There is no information about who the true owners of this publishing operation are or where they are based. The site gives no hint of this information — it is cleverly concealed. If you can figure out where Open Science is based, please let me know. This publisher is not transparent; it leaves visitors to the site with lots of questions.
This is the third new open-access publisher I’ve seen in the past two weeks that has launched with a large fleet of journals with many of the titles starting with “American Journal of ….” The other two were Congress Press, which I wrote about last week, and American Scientific Research Journals, which I added to my list recently but didn’t write about.
Now there are likely more “American Journals” outside of America than in it.
Here are some other issues I observe with this publisher:
It is accepting article and book submissions even though none of the 44 journals has any editorial board members yet.
It uses lofty language to promote itself: “Open Science is an independent, open access publisher and unique cultural institution. We promote widespread awareness and boundary-breaking ideas. Through our well-crafted books, journals, public events, and innovative outreach programs we are building a vibrant community of readers, writers, and thinkers.”
It is currently undertaking a major spam campaign, soliciting editorial board memberships.
It is simultaneously launching 44 new scholarly journals, most with broad scopes.
I will give the publisher credit for one thing: The English language on its site is quite good, with only a few trivial errors. This is different than most questionable publishers, who tend to have prominent grammatical and typographical errors on their sites.
Appendix: List of Open Science journals as of October 14, 2013:
American Journal of Biological Chemistry
American Journal of Biology and Life Sciences
American Journal of Business, Economics and Management
American Journal of Chemistry and Applications
American Journal of Chemistry and Materials Science
American Journal of Circuits, Systems and Signal Processing
American Journal of Computer Science and Engineering
American Journal of Earth Sciences
American Journal of Engineering, Technology and Society
American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science
American Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Research
American Journal of Materials Science and Application
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Automation
American Journal of Modern Physics and Application
American Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
American Journal of Service Science and Management...
The author's credentials:
https://scholarlyoa.com/about/
Next...
Authors ceredentials:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5607
American Journal of Modern Physics
Posted on March 7, 2013 by woit
This morning an e-mail came in from the “Science Publishing Group”, a call for “Editorial Board Members, Reviewers and Paper” for their open access journals, advertised as
Full peer review: All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo double blind peer review.
Fast publication: Fast peer review process of papers within approximately one month of submission.
This included a special deal on the “Article Processing Charge”: $70 or $120 before May 15. I’ve been highly suspicious of all “author pays” open access schemes in math or physics, so I decided to check into what this one was. When I went to their web-site and looked at their list of journals, the first on the list that looked like it would have material in it I would know something about was the American Journal of Modern Physics. The first paper that showed up on the journal web-page was MSSM Neutral Higgs Production Cross Section Via Gluon Fusion and Bottom Quark Fusion at NNLO in QCD by Tetiana Obikhod, so I took a quick look at it.
It looked perfectly competent, but oddly it wasn’t on the arXiv, and the only papers by that author on the arXiv appeared to be some papers on F-theory and D-branes from 1997-98. A little bit of investigation quickly showed that much of the paper was plagiarized from elsewhere, including at least a 2003 paper by Harlander and Kilgore, Higgs boson production in bottom quark fusion at next-to-next-to-leading order and a 2011 paper by Bagnaschi et al. Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM (neither of which are listed in the references)...
...It’s possible that I just got unlucky, that there was a problem only with the first of the papers I looked at, but this seems unlikely. I realize that this is a very obvious case of a journal with extremely low standards, run to make money off of the increasingly popular “author pays” model of financing journals, but I’m hoping that those that are trying to move high-quality journals to this model are seriously thinking through the issues involved. Just this month in the AMS Notices, there is discussion of a proposal to move two of the AMS journals in that direction. Yes, this is very different than AJMP, but there’s an argument to be made about the “author pays” model that it is best avoided, since it’s a good idea to keep academic and vanity publishing strictly separate endeavors.
...
And there will be more, much more coming soon, as I said, alarm bells ringing loudly. The journal has very shaky credentials so far and peer review of it's papers has begun in earnest.
Critical thinking most definately applies here.