 

11 Responses to Impact Factor Confusion: Spam Emails Mislead Researchers

  1. 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.

  2. Dave says:

    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.

  3. AlexH says:

    “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://ip-science.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,

    • How do I determine whether an impact factor is authentic if I do not have access to JCR?

      • Geogeek says:

        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.

  4. Alex SL says:

    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.)

    • Geogeek says:

      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).

  5. L. S. says:

    Did you notice that the IJARP lists your blog as one of the journals that indexes it? At: japr.in/?mod=ind .

  6. herr doktor bimler (partly rugose) says:

    A bit cheeky of DIIF to steal the image of someone’s artwork for their spam:
    http://laughingsquid.com/home-a-book-igloo/

  7. […] new type of spam is being targeted toward the academic world. Spam messages made to look like they are inviting the […]

    • Ole, Ole! says:

      Journal Issues (publisher’s name) invites scientists to review papers and claims a false impact factor. The journal is not listed on JCR’s list. E-mail dated August 20, 2014:
      “Dear Colleague,

      It is a great pleasure to invite you to peer review the research topic ENTITLED [redacted].

      Find the Abstract below: [redacted]

      I know I can count on you to peer-review this manuscript and send it back to us within the stipulated time of 5 days.

      Attached to this mail is the Original manuscript, Guideline for Reviewer and Guide for Authors.

      However, you are free to recommend/forward it to any of your friend or colleague should the attached manuscript is not in your field of interest.

      Thank you for your attention and consideration in this important matter.

      Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this mail.

      I appreciate your effort.

      Best regards,

      Prof. Hail .K. Shannag
      Editor
      International Journal of Agricultural Policy and Research
      E-mail: ijaprpeerreview@journalissues.org
      http://www.journalissues.org/IJAPR/
      ISSN 2350-1561
      Impact Factor = 1.2668
      Index copernicus value:6.18″

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,786 other followers

%d bloggers like this:
https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/05/20/impact-factor-confusion-spam-emails-mislead-researchers/
scholarlyoa.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-36
70146
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:AH3HWGQZKXWYP4VBEJJVV55PEA5BJHYC
<urn:uuid:45b877c4-90c4-4032-b131-79ccc99963d3>
2016-08-29T14:39:55Z
192.0.78.24
sha1:WIVGO4NG6W3ZICELCWIGHNJPBIIIZ4TQ
<urn:uuid:66b8498a-6ce8-47f4-a950-83a8b0f18f6d>
https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/05/20/impact-factor-confusion-spam-emails-mislead-researchers/
length
response
<urn:uuid:f22ddf85-f6fe-44e0-9990-d1d50e4d56e4>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-153-172-175.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-36
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf