May 20, 2014 - screenshot below, one can see that they charge $50 to immediately âcalculateâ an impact factor for a journal. Unfortunately, many will be fooled ...
Scholarly Open Access Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing
Impact Factor Confusion: Spam Emails Mislead Researchers Bogus metrics companies have made it possible for essentially any journal to have an “impact factor.” However, because true impact factor information — the data supplied by Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports — is proprietary, it can be hard to verify publisher impact factor claims
(http://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/spam-impact-1.jpg) Our journal got bogus impact factor. The competition among predatory publishers is increasing, especially among the hundreds of predatory publishers and journals originating from South Asia. These journals need a way to stand out, to compete with other scholarly publications.
The above example is for the International Journal of Ayurveda and Pharma Research (http://ijapr.in/), based in India. It claims the journal has earned impact factors from UIF (Universal Impact Factor (http://uifactor.org/)) and SJIF (Scientific Journal Impact Factor (http://www.sjifactor.inno-space.org/)). I consider these metrics to be completely bogus, so this spam email is easily dismissed because the journal identifies the source of its misleading metrics.
(http://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/spam-impact-2.jpg) Acceptance in three days, and an impact factor, wow. This example (above), part of a spam email for the megajournal entitled International Journal of World Research (http://apjor.com/ijrp/), claims the journal has two impact factors (0.628 and 0.386) but it doesn’t give their sources. The journal also promises it will provide an acceptance letter within three days and only charges $100 for the article processing fee. What other components of scholarly publishing will be corrupted next? We have predatory journals with no real peer review and now bogus metrics made up out of thin air. I think that attention metrics (also called altmetrics) will be next.
(http://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/directory-of-indexing-and-impact-factor.jpg) Directory of rubbish. Above and below are two halves of a spam email I received from the Directory of Indexing and Impact Factor (http://diif.org/) (DIIF), a startup, bogus metrics company. The company’s name is senseless, and, in the screenshot below, one can see that they charge $50 to immediately “calculate” an impact factor for a journal. Unfortunately, many will be fooled by this. I wish there were an easy and quick way for scholars to determine whether the impact factors assigned to a particular journal were bogus or authentic. At this time, my list of misleading metrics (http://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/) is the only source I know.
(http://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/directory-of-indexing-and-impact-factor-two.jpg) Get an impact factor for your journal, only $50.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 at 9:00 AM and is filed under article processing charges, Misleading metrics, Scholarly Open-Access Publishers, spam email, Unethical Practices. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
9 Responses to Impact Factor Confusion: Spam Emails Mislead Researchers
Pwaveno H. Bamaiyi says: May 20, 2014 at 9:09 AM All these seems scary the rate at which things are going!I have said this before and will repeat it: isn’t it about time the international academic community come together and in unity do something about this before it becomes an unconquerable monster? We can form a sort of regulatory body worldwide to regulate these excesses and giant publishing companies like Elsevier et al can lead the way.
3 4 i Rate This
Reply Dave says: May 20, 2014 at 12:08 PM Very likely those “services” and “journals” are just misleading a librarian. If you open any of these “journals”, you will see they are mostly empty – meaning no one falls for these scams. Its like the spam mails from Nigeria: annoying, sometimes funny, but nothing really serious. 4 0 i Rate This
Reply AlexH says: May 20, 2014 at 1:17 PM “I wish there were an easy and quick way for scholars to determine whether the impact factors assigned to a particular journal were bogus or authentic. ”
Its easy and quick: Check if the journal is in TR’s Master Journal List or not. http://ipscience.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/ If not, than it’s pretty certain that it can not have a valid IF. I can count on one hand how many predators have made it to TR MJL, 2 1 i Rate This Reply Jeffrey Beall says: May 23, 2014 at 6:26 PM How do I determine whether an impact factor is authentic if I do not have access to JCR? 0 0 i Rate This
Reply Geogeek says: May 25, 2014 at 7:39 AM I was able to check several journal titles without any login requested. The search engine is tetchy (didn’t find a well-known journal at first because I didn’t use the wildcard indicator for the topical sub-journals), but free. 0 0 i Rate This
Alex SL says: May 23, 2014 at 1:13 AM As I have said here before, in my opinion the problem is being exaggerated. Well-trained scientists know the good journals in their area and ignore the predatory ones without having to think about it. They certainly don’t need impact factors for that, be they Thompson Reuters or fake. The real criteria are:
- Do other serious, qualified scientists I know publish in that journal? - Does the journal have a decent peer review process? - Who are the editors, and what is their standing in the community? - Does the journal publish the kind of papers I find myself citing when writing my own manuscripts or grant proposals? - What is the quality of the papers published in the journal?
(Of course, one has to be qualified enough to make all these assessments and actually go to the trouble of reading some of the papers instead of relying on what some number crunchers serve us on a silver platter. Shocking, I know.) 4 0 i Rate This
Reply Geogeek says: May 25, 2014 at 7:41 AM Your method requires that person be both experienced and working with larger groups. Early career people, and those doing legitimate research on their own in small institutions do exist (shocking, I know). 2 0 i
Rate This Reply L. S. says: May 23, 2014 at 3:51 AM Did you notice that the IJARP lists your blog as one of the journals that indexes it? At: japr.in/?mod=ind . 4 0 i Rate This Reply herr doktor bimler (partly rugose) says: June 4, 2014 at 3:10 PM A bit cheeky of DIIF to steal the image of someone’s artwork for their spam: http://laughingsquid.com/home-a-book-igloo/ 1 0 i Rate This Reply
Customized Contempt Theme. Blog at WordPress.com. Follow
Follow “Scholarly Open Access” Powered by WordPress.com
