Vít Macháček & Martin Srholec (2021) Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences, Scientometrics, 126, 1897-1921 has been retracted due to: Errors in Analyses, Errors in Methods, Unreliable Results.
We provide a few more details,
We recently ran a survey asking if an acknowledgement is required if somebody proof reads your paper. 55.6% said that no acknowledgement was required, with 44.4% saying that an acknowledge should be provided. These results come with some caveats, which we explore in this article.
We would like to invite those that are interested in our work to become one of our patrons.
This will support us financially, which will enable us to do even more but, importantly, it will also enable us to be more targeted in areas that are of direct interest to the community.
We will also be able to engage with our patrons in a more meaningful way, especially those who, like us, want to eliminate predatory publishing and fake journals.
For any impact factor, you should be able to verify (i.e. reproduce) it. With Google Scholar, this is possible but can be time consuming and it also requires a certain level of knowledge that many may not posses.
We consider SCIREA’s revenue in an attempt to estimate how much profit this publisher makes. We estimate their revenue to be USD 151,340, with a profit of about USD 121,072.
SCIREA is a scientific publisher that has a portfolio of 39 journals. These 39 journals have 13,288 editors, meaning that each journal has an average of 341 editors. Each of these editors has handled less than one paper each, over the last five years.
The International Journal of Management (ISSN: 0976-6502), which is published by IAEME Publication has two Google Scholar entries. Each one shows a different number of publications, citations, h-index etc. In this article, we take a closer look as well as comparing against the journal’s own records, from its web site.
Radio National’s Background Briefing recently presented a grim academic tale of identity theft, shambolic conferences, exploitation, sham peer review and pseudoscience.
This article was originally published in The Conversation.
One of the features (we like to believe) of our Twitter account are the regular posts we do that feature “Soundbites” and “EMAIL snippets”. But what are they, why do we feature these, why do we feel that are important and how do we create the images? All the answers are here.
We show an email exchange between the International Journal of Biosensors & Bioelectronics (ISSN: 2573-2838), which is published by MedCrave, and a potential author. We show the full email exchange and also comment on what we think it means and draw a comparison with scambaiting.