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)