The Scientist

» predatory publishing

Most Recent

The Federal Trade Commission won an initial ruling against the India-based publisher for allegedly misleading researchers and for misrepresenting journal impact factors and editorial boards. 

1 Comment

image: <em>Oncotarget</em> Journal Cut from Medline

Oncotarget Journal Cut from Medline

By | October 26, 2017

New papers from a cancer journal once named as a possibly predatory publication will no longer appear in the widely used research database.

0 Comments

image: Opinion: We Need a Replacement for Beall’s List

Opinion: We Need a Replacement for Beall’s List

By , , , , and | August 15, 2017

Although the popular blacklist of predatory publishers is gone, the suspect journals they produce are not. 

5 Comments

image: On Blacklists and Whitelists

On Blacklists and Whitelists

By | July 17, 2017

Experts debate how best to point researchers to reputable publishers and steer them away from predatory ones.

0 Comments

image: Identifying Predatory Publishers

Identifying Predatory Publishers

By | July 17, 2017

How to tell reputable journals from shady ones

1 Comment

image: Opinion: Why I Published in a Predatory Journal

Opinion: Why I Published in a Predatory Journal

By | April 6, 2017

Our totally bogus case report swiftly passed muster, with only minor revisions requested.

10 Comments

image: SCOPUS Dumps OMICS Journals

SCOPUS Dumps OMICS Journals

By | March 29, 2017

A database of scientific journal titles has removed several OMICS titles for “publication concerns.”

1 Comment

image: Notable Science Quotes

Notable Science Quotes

By | October 1, 2016

Roger Tsien R.I.P., predatory publishing, and diversity in science

0 Comments

image: US Gov't Takes On Predatory Publishers

US Gov't Takes On Predatory Publishers

By | August 29, 2016

The Federal Trade Commission has filed a legal complaint against the OMICS Group for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices.

1 Comment

image: Predatory Journal Biz Booming

Predatory Journal Biz Booming

By | October 5, 2015

Scientific publishers with questionable standards raked in about $75 million and published more than 400,000 articles last year, according to a new analysis.

2 Comments

Popular Now

  1. Thousands of Mutations Accumulate in the Human Brain Over a Lifetime
  2. 2017 Top 10 Innovations
    Features 2017 Top 10 Innovations

    From single-cell analysis to whole-genome sequencing, this year’s best new products shine on many levels.

  3. Search for Life on the Red Planet
  4. Two Dozen House Republicans Do an About-Face on Tuition Tax
FreeShip