If Jeffrey Beall gives just criteria and the researchers can use those criteria for identifying the predatory publishers. Many are suspecting Jeffrey Beall’s activity and his list because Hindawi and Versita can be classified as predatory as per many of the criteria that Jeffrey Beall lists. But many researchers say that Jeffrey Beall has stopped commented on these publishers because …… (The people know the reason).
Can Jeffrey Beall openly discuss why he removed Hindawi and VersitaOpen?
The English of the email apparently from Jeffrey Beall that is cited as evidence, it looks suspiciously like that of a non-English speaker. I would therefore question its authenticity. Does anyone know where it came from?
If the inarticulate English didn’t give it away, then the incoherent content falsely attributed to me should be apparent to everyone with any familiarity with open access and with our views.
But the Fool’s-Gold scam journals are going beyond just spamming to solicit authors, editors and referees: They are now doing fraudulent postings to counter criticism. This is the dark side of openness and begins to sound like the Nigerian fee scams.
Congratulations to Jeffrey Beall whose work becomes ever more important, as this sad development illustrates.
Dr. Soumyadeep Bhaumik
If Jeffrey Beall gives just criteria and the researchers can use those criteria for identifying the predatory publishers. Many are suspecting Jeffrey Beall’s activity and his list because Hindawi and Versita can be classified as predatory as per many of the criteria that Jeffrey Beall lists. But many researchers say that Jeffrey Beall has stopped commented on these publishers because …… (The people know the reason).
Can Jeffrey Beall openly discuss why he removed Hindawi and VersitaOpen?
Can you please share details about this.. I will be glad to know about this in details @stevan
Many people say that he got money from Hindawi and VersitaOpen. One day his predatory behavior will come out with open access.
well any links ? or evidence to that regards..
http://pricesteve14.wordpress.com/
here you go for the evidence
The English of the email apparently from Jeffrey Beall that is cited as evidence, it looks suspiciously like that of a non-English speaker. I would therefore question its authenticity. Does anyone know where it came from?
THE DARK SIDE OF OPENNESS: PREDATORY PUBLISHERS ALSO POST FRAUDULENT COMMENTS IN OTHERS’ NAMES
(see Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385 )
If the inarticulate English didn’t give it away, then the incoherent content falsely attributed to me should be apparent to everyone with any familiarity with open access and with our views.
But the Fool’s-Gold scam journals are going beyond just spamming to solicit authors, editors and referees: They are now doing fraudulent postings to counter criticism. This is the dark side of openness and begins to sound like the Nigerian fee scams.
Congratulations to Jeffrey Beall whose work becomes ever more important, as this sad development illustrates.
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/850-Fools-Gold-Journal-Spam.html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/455-OA-Needs-Open-Evidence,-Not-Anonymous-Innuendo.html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/470-SuberHarnad-statement-in-support-of-the-investigative-work-of-Richard-Poynder.html