From: Jayanta Lahiri <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:55:22 +0530
Random self- citation is unethical, deceptive and generally employed
out of lack of self -confidence of the author. The subject issue is
too weak and therefore is to be fatten or the author is
megalomaniac . He takes the opportunity of the reader's ignorance.
Must be stopped.
Dr Lahiri.
On 24 June 2013 04:38, Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I don't understand the conflation between gaming an impact
> factor (by publishers? by editors?), "predatory behavior,"
> Beall's list, subscription vs. OA, and all the other variables/players
> discussed below.
>
> They are related to each other because...?
>
> Bill
>
>
> On 6/23/13 4:54 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>>
>> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:04:03 +0000
>>
>> This blog post made me curious. Surely gaming the impact factor is a
>> practice we should be made aware of in the academic library world,
>> since impact is a selling point for subscriptions. So are there
>> subscription journals on this list, or are such "predatory practices"
>> really confined to open access publishing?
>>
>> The Nature blog post initially led me to think that, regardless of
>> business model, these were very obscure journals. They cite two
>> specific titles, and it is probably fair to call the Iranian Journal
>> of Fuzzy Systems obscure, at least to Western academics. It is
>> apparently published by an Iranian university. But the other one
>> named, the International Journal of Crashworthiness, is published by
>> Taylor and Francis, so is likely part of a journal package sold to
>> many universities. Knowing that made me more curious.
>>
>> I selected a random sample of fifteen of these titles to see who
>> published them. While it would be unfair to blame the publishers for
>> all of the practices that caused Thomson Reuters to ban these titles,
>> knowing their sources can at least give us a better idea of the scope
>> of the problem of dubious publishing practices. So from my random
>> sample of fifteen titles, here is a breakdown of who the publishers of
>> these banned titles are:
>>
>> * Only one of the fifteen is a purely open access journal, published
>> by an association and not on Beall's list of predatory OA
>> publications. The remainder appear to be subscription journals, most
>> with a "hybrid" paid OA option.
>>
>> * One other, in addition to the OA title mentioned above, is published
>> by an association.
>>
>> * Four are published by small presses of which I have not heard before
>> (a subjective classification, I know).
>>
>> * The remaining nine titles from my sample are published by four of
>> the large commercial academic publishers: Taylor and Francis (2), Sage
>> (3), Elsevier (2), and Springer (2).
>>
>> This breakdown confirms my impression that we need to have a broader
>> discussion about publishing ethics and good stewardship of academic
>> resources rather than focusing our attention only on misbehaving open
>> access publishers.
>>
>> Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
>> Director, Copyright and Scholarly Communication
>> Duke University Libraries
>> P.O. Box 90193
>> Durham, NC 27708
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pamela Puryear <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:35:14 -0400
>>
>> http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/06/new-record-66-journals-banned-for-boosting-impact-factor-with-self-citations.html
>>
>> Pamela E. Puryear, MA, MLS, CCRM
>> NCARS Resource Manager
>> North Carolina Agricultural Research Service (NCARS)
|
