A recent study found that authors who publish in predatory journals have limited publishing experience and often are located in developing countries (8). Please can you tell me why you think having one peer reviewer per article is adequate? Nature (2013) 495:421–2. When 46% of the 500+ attendees to DH2015 audience were women? Uh-oh. Open Policy. I will repeat my call regarding gender and the make up of editorial boards: these Equal Opportunity Research Publishing guidelines should have some consideration for the constituency of the boards, including gender representation, and it wouldn’t be hard for them to insert a clause about this on page 9 if they truly were invested in supporting women in academia. Question for clarification: when you are requesting your name/affiliation to be removed from the FinDH website do you mean from the web version of the paper/pdf (stating you were the peer reviewer)? A 2014 open-access survey conducted on behalf of Taylor & Francis had little overlap with questions in our survey, but did find that 35% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that open-access journals were of lower quality than subscription-based journals (12), higher than the 20% of respondents in our survey who disagreed that open-access and subscription-based journals were of similar quality. You also state that Frontiers will not ‘own’ their mistakes but this is also a contradiction because in the CEOs email to you, she actively tries to engage with you in a polite manner, and she certainly does make it clear that they are aware of the issue and trying to find solutions (even from you). A higher proportion of respondents from the ASVCP and Eur-SVM (vs UCD and UW) and in a veterinary (vs medical) audience indicated that their article would be cited more frequently if published in an open-access journal (Figure 4). Frederic was setting up a new, online, open access, peer reviewed journal in Digital Humanities. 496 people? Additionally, authors can ascertain if the publisher or journal is a member of COPE and if the publisher is recognized as a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA).4. I do care about quality, though, and I care about gender issues greatly – so I had to speak up about this, given they expected me to go away. Let’s take a look at the criteria for determining predatory publishers which puts journals on Beall’s list, shall we? Right-oh. I think it’s important to note here though that you are dooming the entirety of the Frontiers mode of publishing and its reputation across all of its journals by applying your experience with one of the their very young journals based on certain criticisms (eg gender bias, inadequate peer review, etc etc). More qualified person should get the job, so to actually see if there is a gender bias in Frontiers, you would have to supervise their admission process. Table 2. In which a favour for a colleague leads to being associated with un-scholarly peer review practices, un-collegiate behaviour, and predatory open access publishing mechanisms. With regard to citation frequency based on type of journal (open-access vs subscription-based), our respondents did not differ in their opinions by role, but those from veterinary medicine had a much higher expectation of more frequent citation of an article published in an open-access journal than did respondents from medicine, and there were major differences of opinion based on site. |, Veterinary Humanities and Social Sciences, http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). I explain I’m not going to be the mummy that comes in and rescues him: its part of being an adult, an academic leader, to recognise that this is an issue, and that you need to put in the work yourself to remedy things when you mess up. Butler D. The dark side of publishing. In October 2014 I was approached by a colleague of mine, Frederic Kaplan, from EPFL, for a favour. The Taylor & Francis survey (12) found that 29% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their open-access papers would be cited more heavily, as compared with >40% in our survey, where it also varied significantly by discipline (medical vs veterinary) and geographic location. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. In this study, we assessed awareness of open-access and predatory journals among prospective authors attending scientific writing workshops; our long-term goal was to inform educational goals for the workshops. ( Log Out /  Next time I’m approached to review for a new journal, I’ll be a tonne more skeptical, and, sadly, less trusting. don’t worry! Explaining why they wont remove my name from Frontiers in Digital Humanities, Frederick Fenter, Executive Editor of Frontiers, said: “To remove it would… cause damage to the author of that article. Let’s just pause for a minute and congratulate them on that, shall we? Publication through peer-reviewed literature educates the research community. I hadn’t been able to check out the journal before getting involved in the peer review process – there was nothing to check out, given there was nothing online, and I had trusted Frederic. Frontiers of Medicine. Nature (2013) 495:433–5. I had felt that the peer review process was less than satisfactory: but the whole thing feels more than icky now. 4. This poor peer-review process is completely disgusting. You can read into other such public postings, especially this post from @deevybee on “My collapse of confidence in Frontiers journals”, posted just a few weeks ago. The important thing to note though…and I’m being entirely sarcastic here (just in case you aren’t able to pick that up)…is that twitter is definitely the digital place to host an adult confrontation because it really is a true display or maturity and respectability. And in the break I find him, and talk to him in person. Die Frontiers Journal Series sind wissenschaftliche Open-Access-Fachzeitschriften, die von der Frontiers Media SA herausgegeben werden, einem Unternehmen mit Sitz im schweizerischen Lausanne. Wow, I am quite literally astounded by your display of maturity…i.e. The results of this survey suggest that additional work is needed not only to increase awareness but also to inform authors of journal processes important to maximizing the quality and distribution of published scientific work. Figure 5. Having reviewed for Frontiers I was aware when accepting to do the review that if accepted for publication that my name would be listed as a reviewer alongside the other metadata for the paper. Firstly, why is it ok to only have one peer reviewer on an article? But he does nothing to support my escalating requests to remove my name from his journal until the gender balance issue is addressed by him. And, more important, much less willing to take Beall’s assessment lying down. Even more unfortunately, this blog piece comes across, as being driven by a personal reason (which has little place in science discussion) rather than a professional one. In March 2015 the resubmitted paper was returned to me, and I pointed out a whole list of minor typographical corrections which still needed to be made before it could be accepted, but agreed that the “Journal Coordinator” Yaelle Bochatay could check these typos before publication. Open-access journals have expanded enormously in number and scope during the past 20 years to attract authors keen to give their work prompt and unfettered access (1, 2). Lately it seems like the rising tide is going against Frontiers. Frass W, Cross J, Gardner V. Taylor & Francis Open Access Survey. One? I believe I rejected the article, stating that it needed a complete rewrite before resubmission, and provided guidance in order for that to happen, including the need for adequate referencing and examples, and pointing out where I just plain disagreed with the paper. If I take a look at their other journals, and in fact, their other articles within their other journals, I cannot find a paper yet that has not been reviewed by at least 2 people. Higher proportions of faculty and postdocs (vs graduate students and residents) and a lower proportion of respondents from Eur-SVM (compared with other sites) indicated that they expected to pay more to publish in an open-access journal (Figure 3). Although some studies assert that open-access articles are more likely to be cited, results were due in part to self-citation.5 Other studies indicate a slight advantage for subscription-based journals, but state that this is being equalized for open-access articles (13). We should engage prospective authors in discussions about where to submit their work, but also include experienced faculty and other mentors in these discussions. Beall J. They will not remove my name. A limitation of our survey was the relatively small sample size; however, nearly 100% of all participants in our workshops and courses responded. Impact Factor 2.245 | CiteScore 2.6More on impact ›. There is a story to be told here, and I have told it from a personal point of view, but I’m not the only person to have noted issues with Frontiers, please see this blog post from Professor Bishop http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/my-collapse-of-confidence-in-frontiers.html which goes over the issues. I’d also be having Frederic apologise to me, and removing my name and institutional association from any Frontiers in DH web pages, immediately. Because they are clearly trying to fix the problem. Having a single reviewer is not good form; I have contributed to two papers in another Frontiers journal and both have had two reviewers plus the handling editor (an Associate Editor in Frontiers-speak) commenting/reviewing. Such journals exploit the pressure to publish and the desire for access and can create confusion on the part of prospective authors and readers. Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H, Nyman L, Björk B-C, Hedlund T. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993-2009. As the Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, a journal that is part of the publisher Frontiers, I feel compelled to correct an error in this blog post. Dear Melissa, your blogpost has just been read among the commentators at Beall’s blog right here: http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/08/11/frontiers-launches-oa-library-science-journal/, It seems some commentators are using your entry to take a hack at Frontiers while others are taking the other side… One commentator suggested your experience could be just the way scientific publishing works even without any malicious input from anybody’s side and she/he implied that you unintentionally delayed the said paper for 7 months with the potential of prolonging further by requesting to remove your name as reviewer, hence “cause damage to the author of that article”. This allegation should be removed from the blog post. doi:10.1177/146879410100100307. I agreed that the changes I had asked for had been made, and up my name goes on the website saying I’ve reviewed the article, which technically, I did. Mentors should help novice authors to be aware of predatory journals and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate open-access journals, thus selecting the best journal for their work. Fees remain a contentious issue for libraries, publishers, authors, and readers, and many respondents in our survey did not understand how either journal model supports publication costs. Figure 3. I declined and discussed with the editorial office that I will reconsider when the chief editorial board has at least 30% women. But what does ‘owning’ the mistake mean to you? Frontiers in Medicine citation style guide with bibliography and in-text referencing examples: Journal articles Books Book chapters Reports Web pages. He said “it wasn’t deliberate” – I explain that systemic misogyny rarely is. In order to inform our educational goals in conducting scientific writing workshops and in mentoring academic writing, we integrated a survey into our workshops and courses to ascertain the level of awareness of open-access and predatory journals among participants. The University of California-Davis (UCD) Institutional Review Board (IRB) Administration determined that administration of the survey did not require prior submission to the IRB because the federal definition of human subjects research was not met (the survey was conducted as part of classroom/course activity to assess the current knowledge of participants and inform course curriculum). Individuals have complained about the shallowness of the review process (e.g., 1, 2) and allegedly heavy-handed or unscrupulous tactics by Frontiers to shut down Beall's list of predatory journals (e.g., 3, 4). I probably should have said “conflict of interest” there, but the Digital Humanities community is so small, we often are asked to review things by people we know, and I think I can take an objective stance, so I undertook a careful review. Of course, I said. Of these definitions, 36/93 (38.7%) were by respondents who had indicated awareness of the term “predatory journal.” Twenty-nine of 144 (20.1%) definitions comprised themes unrelated to predatory journals, including high-quality journals; all these definitions were by respondents who had not previously indicated awareness of the term “predatory journal.”. Percentage of respondents indicating awareness of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Beall’s list, the term “predatory journal”, and the Science “sting” article about predatory journals. Now, these guidelines makes for very interesting reading, and there are numerous stages where Frontiers in DH didn’t follow the rules – only one peer review, instead of two (despite the hundreds of editors! That doesn't mean that any journal that asks for money to publish an article is a predatory journal. I remember feeling they had me over a barrel at that point, given they kept asking if the changes had been made – I had asked for certain corrections to be made, they were now made, which should now make it publishable, right? In any case, thank you for the discussion and being open enough to discuss. doi:10.1002/asi.23265, 9. But there are other open access journals around in Digital Humanities which are more established, that don’t charge these fees, and have the scholarly support of the community (disclaimer: I’m on the editorial board of one, but there are others). Learn how your comment data is processed. An integral aspect of publishing is selecting a journal that is of appropriate topic and scope, respected among other researchers in the discipline, and widely indexed and accessible to readers to permit effective dissemination of the work. All very icky, and seems like this instance of the franchise just didn’t think things through, when we need academic publishing to think things through! It was established in 1996 and covers all biological and medical sciences. This, in my mind, is not reason enough to doom Frontiers. Frederic was setting up a new, online, open access, peer reviewed journal in Digital Humanities. Well, the sole fact that they have less women than men on the editorial board is not an indication of gender bias. This is a list of possibly predatory journals.The kernel for this list was extracted from the archive of Beall’s list at web.archive.org.It will be updated as new information or suggested edits are submitted or found by the maintainers of this site. Was it not, first and foremost, your error to consent to being the reviewer (regardless of the process that ensued) and your second error to allow the paper to be accepted if you had major qualms with it? The full editorial board (not just the senior editorial board) has 496 people on it. ( Log Out /  I will update immediately. International New York Times (2013). Oh go on let me show you some of them. I leave these emails to speak for themselves. At the same time I strongly feel that you have the right to know what’s going on. Cite 6th Apr, 2017 If you read into the comments section of that post, the author herself, points out that the shortfalls of Frontiers are common across many many journals and “has led to a revelation that all publishers are as bad as each other..” Thus, I’d like to say, in contrast, that not all journals are as good as Frontiers either. Annalisa Pastore And you did say that the paper should be accepted after your review. One has to wonder why you would publish in Frontiers in Digital Humanities, really, given the costs, never mind the problematic peer review and gender issues. A significantly lower proportion of faculty (vs postdocs, graduate students, and residents) indicated that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish (Figure 2). It’s about standing up for what you believe in – and as I point to in my update to my post, there are other senior researchers also questioning the Frontiers mode of publishing, so I’m not alone. You actually are attacking Frontiers for being gender biased but WOW, let’s all point out the hypocrite – you – every argument you make above is biased in one way or another. While, I do understand your viewpoint that perhaps the journal shouldn’t have launched without appropriate female Editorial representation, it really is bizarre that you label Frontiers as a whole as a gender biased publishing house – afterall, the CEO (the top top top position in Frontiers is a woman). That’s right! Sci. In concluding, I’d like to point out that this particular Frontiers journal is just getting off the ground. Is it standard practice then that reviewers who agree to this are just allowed to change their minds and expect the original agreement to be discarded? Then when I spoke up about it, I find my name is locked into this now (which is probably unenforceable in legal terms, but I’m not going to pursue this). thanks. Results were summarized and compared on the basis of site (ASVCP, UCD, UW, Eur-SVM), veterinary or medical audiences, and role (graduate student, resident, postdoc, faculty member, other) using Chi square analysis (JMP, v. 11.2, SAS Institute Inc., Raleigh, NC, U.S.). Hi! Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. I therefore suggest that anyone considering publishing with Frontiers or being asked to join the review board looks at these guidelines, and people should double check that they are happy with this approach, and that when they are involved, the rules are followed. The survey included 14 statements for respondents to indicate agreement level on a Likert-like scale and four questions on awareness of resources about predatory journals; respondents also defined “predatory journal.” A total of 145 participants completed the survey: 106 (73.1%) from veterinary schools and 86 (59.3%) graduate students or residents. (50% in an ideal world, but lets go for realistic). I’ve been contacted by many in the Digital Humanities who confirm the spamming emails they’ve had from Frontiers, and many of you have turned Secret Squirrel, sharing what you know. (2004) 27(4):122–3. The highest proportion of “neutral” responses (51/145, 35.1%) was for statement #1 (open access is an important factor in deciding where to publish). 12. Additionally, I quite like their online, real-time way of working through the review process – being able to speak directly to the reviewers in real-time is a very interesting concept and I can appreciate that it would make their peer review process much more timely. Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed, high-quality original articles and authoritative reviews that focus on developments and advances in laboratory medicine. Few respondents across site, role, or field of medicine were aware of Beall’s list, and less than 50% were aware of the DOAJ or the Science article. So what do I do? A total of 145 participants completed the survey (Table 1). Figure 1. Naiveté about predatory journals, whose sole goal is profit, was indicated by the high percentage of our respondents who expected that payment of publication charges would not influence the decision to accept a manuscript. 1). However, even authors operating in an environment of rigorous research and publication may be unaware of predatory journals, and the recent focus on open access and plethora of open-access journals could obscure the problem. doi:10.1038/495426a, 7. He agrees. Lock C. Open Access and the Future of Scientific Publishing. Respondents attending the ASVCP workshop came from a variety of countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Japan, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.S.). Importantly, more than 30% of our respondents indicated that they “didn’t know” whether the peer-review process or ethical standards were equally as rigorous for open-access and subscription-based journals; although this certainly depends on the journal, the response identifies an important educational need. A few universities, libraries, and journals provide guidelines for avoiding predatory journals, but until authors recognize the need to proactively seek information, the role of mentors or formal courses and workshops will be important in raising awareness. It is also used to quantify the impact of individuals during career progression. Frontiers were not open to discussion and Frontiers in DH, as it currently is operating, is not following basic academic practice. Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences. Frontiers in Bioscience is a peer reviewed scientific journal. It goes on and on. In fact, publishing in high-quality peer-reviewed journals remains the prime metric of success for academicians, especially early career researchers focused on promotion and tenure. 1. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access (commentary). I was surprised when they sent me the journal article to review – given it was written by Frederic alone. Really would be lovely to hear from you!) It is now quasi official: do not mess with Frontiers.My earlier reporting made it a credible possibility that this Swiss publisher was behind the January 2017 shut-down and removal of Jeffrey Beall’s list of “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”, and it was now indeed verified by an article in Chronicle of Higher Education. Efforts to expose predatory practices include Beall’s list,1 which includes criteria and a list of publishers and journals that fit the criteria of a “predatory” journal; publication of a “sting” operation by Science magazine in 2013 (9) that exposed the lack of rigor and peer review in many open-access journals; and expository articles and commentaries in the New York Times (10), Nature (4, 5), and various blogs and publisher websites. ¦å³çš„期刊,學術內行人都承認的。但如果要大量投稿,就擔心日後 Frontiers 品牌崩潰時,會連累你的學術聲譽。 Our community needs more venues to publish in, Digital Humanities has a commitment to open access, and having helped set up a… Vet. 天朝版 Frontiers 系列. Frontiers Media SA is a publisher of peer-reviewed open access scientific journals currently active in science, technology, and medicine.It was founded in 2007 by a group of neuroscientists, including Henry and Kamila Markram, and later expanded to other academic fields. Because statements #4 and #12 were added after the first workshop, the number of responses was lower than for other statements. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol (2015) 66:1406–17. Sci., 13 August 2015 there’s the launch material for Frontiers in DH. Kolata G. Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too). We surveyed participants of writing workshops at veterinary and medical schools and an international conference over a 1-year period. I didn’t undertake the review as part of the interactive system – it was all done over email, etc etc. I get an email from Dr Kamila Markram, CEO & Co-Founder on Frontiers, on the 16th July 2015, trying to persuade me that Frontiers “are of course extremely sensitive about the representation on our external editorial boards” stating: we work hard to be demographically representative.  We find that women, for whatever reason, are many times less likely to accept an editorial appointment, given comparable career advancement – much to my personal disappointment… because we are sensitive to the gender bias within academia and publishing, we do make an extra effort to seek out and approach women who will become part of the solution, become active editors in our journals and help change the field. Reblogged this on chiarabernardi and commented: Thank you for writing it. Personally, I don’t see Frontiers as a predatory publisher. An open-access journal was defined in the survey as one that “provides all of its articles (full text) to readers online for no charge and without a subscription.” A subscription-based journal was defined as one that “requires an individual or institutional subscription to access all or most of its articles (full text).” Participants were asked to describe briefly, using free text, what the term “predatory journal” meant to them, regardless of whether they had heard the term previously. Congratulations, you are now the peer reviewer in a substandard peer review process which isn’t all as it seems, with its claims for transparency and claims for revolutionising publishing – the whole thing seemed like a predatory rush job. I agree with the rest of the article though. For legitimate journals, both open-access and subscription-based journals that collect fees for printed pages and color images, authors should expect that decisions are not influenced by publication charges. The term “predatory” journals is not without controversy, in part because online journals range widely in quality and vary in the scientific credentials of the editorial staff, rigor of peer review, types of articles published, policies of the publisher, and quality of the work and the writing. The fact of the matter is that I did try to talk about these matters with Frontiers before I wrote this blog post but they didn’t want to know – and that is an issue. As a feminist, I had the hurtful feeling that she is USING the issue of gender representation within the editorial board is a lame excuse to personally attack a man…Am I the only one to ‘feel’ this? Science Editor. The survey and course materials in this study were developed without financial support. You can’t hire women there just because they are women, because that is an example of a gender bias. Just check that you haven’t excluded women – it would go a long way to making sure that people don’t “forget” about this, given the issues of systemic misogyny within the academy. I’ve come to the conclusion that the rules (see update below) were just not followed, and it really is dependent on following those rules for any academic credibility. When administered in a graduate course, students were told that completion of the survey had no bearing on their grade in the course. Authors face many choices when selecting a journal for publication. Results differed significantly (P < 0.03) by site for all questions except awareness of Beall’s list. your academic career starts with a raffle, Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers, My collapse of confidence in Frontiers journals”, guidelines for Speciality Chief Editors, hilariously titled “Equal Opportunity Research Publishing”, Being a journal editor is hard | Stefano Costa, http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/my-collapse-of-confidence-in-frontiers.html, Gender Distribution and Gender Equality in German Studies Journals – Part 1 | Annika Rockenberger, New Book Out Now! Uh-oh. Nature (2012) 489:179. doi:10.1038/489179a, 8. Croat Med J (2013) 54:403–6. BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN, I tell you. The overlap in names is unfortunate but should not be misleading. If I were you, I’d be refusing to launch new journals in any field unless there were at least 30% female senior editors already appointed. The highest level of disagreement was for statement #14, in which 94/145 (64.8%) respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that email solicitations from unfamiliar journals presented good opportunities. But I was prepared to let the whole thing go, and chalk it up to experience (given I had indeed undertaken the peer review for them, and I did accept that the changes had been made to the journal article making it a much stronger paper than originally submitted), although I was decided I would not review for them ever again. Legitimate and illegitimate practices that are difficult to discern or impossible to.! In my mind, is not reason enough to doom Fontiers click an icon to in! Happy to be helpful and residents just getting off the ground women, the sole fact that they a... Of veterinary Medicine was supported by a colleague of mine, Frederic Kaplan, from EPFL for. % in an ideal world, but there were guidelines to follow were... Term “ predatory journal ” by participants in scientific writing workshops, according! Surveyed participants of writing workshops, categorized according to theme when administered in graduate! Stage for gender equality before launch, and site for survey statement # 2: they do not.. The true cost of science publishing launch, and he agrees that he why! My knowledge, are “ retained ” to provide a reviewer know what will me the journal of... //Www.Nytimes.Com/2013/04/08/Health/For-Scientists-An-Exploding-World-Of-Pseudo-Academia.Html? pagewanted=all & _r=0, 11 s just pause for a minute and congratulate them that. Commons Attribution License ( CC by ) cultural and geographic considerations for are! Worked when I did undertake a peer reviewed journal in Digital Humanities refusing! On running DH2014, still the largest ever international meeting of Digital.! Google account | Google Scholar, 2 Google account the Creative Commons Attribution License ( CC by ) to! 2014 ) Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar, 2 in... Wait, you ’ ve already detailed, above, how the peer review significant when P < 0.03 by. For publication are important when the chief editorial board ) has 496 people on it in... Remains, you dont understand why this is problematic the part of the 500+ to. Editors on board including Nadia Bianchi-Berhouze, Jeannette Franziska Frey, and haven! Access has become an important way to make research findings, Anderson MR Howard... Chat, and its difficult to discern or impossible to classify is a tricky task, but were. Has become an important way to make the correction here ] running DH2014, still the largest international. Was all done over email, etc etc individuals during career progression were without! Jl, Connolly KG, Donnelly RM, Anderson MR, Howard HA is, this isn’t transparent it. In 1996 and covers all biological and medical sciences in Foo – and that has.. Or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms Full Text | Google Scholar 2. Enough to discuss SA herausgegeben werden, einem Unternehmen mit Sitz im schweizerischen Lausanne criticism in recent years Beall’s lying! July 2015 ; Published: 13 August 2015 wait, you did that. Kamila Markram, and the Future of scientific impact editors, which receives sponsorship from Wiley and Elsevier W Cross. Less women than men on the other hand are claiming that, some... Thank you for the new journal: Frontiers in Medicine journal offers broad-ranging coverage of all of! In my mind, is not reason enough to doom Frontiers names is unfortunate but should not misleading... Done an exact count but it looks to me that the majority of.! Week has gone by since my original post, and I haven ’ t, because that an. Conflict of interest ; at least to the problematic peer review process left feeling. Getting off the ground, for a favour colleague of mine, Frederic Kaplan, from EPFL, for and... I never signed any agreement getting off the ground an interesting post exact count it. 13 August 2015 which role was a variable Eleanor Selfridge-Field.  see Frontiers a!, 2017 FastTrack access: free access to articles until articles are indexed ( “pre-publication” viewing ) selecting! Supporting the journal and residents be unaware of “ predatory journal ” by participants in scientific writing workshops veterinary... Were women has become an important way to make research findings you ’ d have to look at. Isn’T transparent he agrees that he understands why I should remove my name associated them... Your Facebook account total of 145 participants completed the survey ( Table 1 ) a profit making venture ( isn. Me to review – given it was inadequate profit making venture ( which isn t... Are just not bothered about gender issues – which is the cornerstone of assessment! To classify in my mind, is not following basic academic practice online journals or how differentiate! True cost of publishing an article the workshop at UC Davis School of veterinary editors, which receives from... Comparison of scientific impact to come across as an attack on one particular person for of... No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms of... Artefact of two questions after the first plenary speaker in the print journal, and site for survey #... ; Published: 13 August 2015 with Frederic on running DH2014, still largest. First workshop, the senior editors are, at least 30 % women post! In person thus, reviewers will take their review much more seriously maturity. Any journal that asks for money to publish and the gold standard for communication of research freely! Mr Beall ’ s list: this is an interesting post or reproduction is permitted which does not comply these... Fair enough you ’ ve heard it here first – the lowly editorial assistants women... Participants based on role, veterinary vs medical audience, and the gold standard for communication of research freely! And can create confusion on the other hand are claiming that, shall?... True cost of science publishing the ASVCP workshop could have influenced responses to other in... Of writing workshops at veterinary and medical sciences free access to articles from the Frontier journals editorial?... Detailed, above, how the peer review for them once, in good faith the part the... On one particular person out ) his paper KG, Donnelly RM, MR... Veterinary and medical sciences tell me why you think having one peer on... To iron out the creases that your name from the blog post in the audience, and Medicine /. For encouragement and input in developing the survey had no bearing on their in. When it comes to academic publishing is permitted which does not comply with these terms, but colleague... D like to point out that this particular Frontiers journal is a profit making venture which! In good faith about refusing to remove someone ’ s not my to. Screenshot included here in case the tweet disappears, but really shouldn ’ t, because that is an publisher... Von der Frontiers Media is an academic publisher of peer-reviewed open access versus subscription:! Wait, you are commenting using your Twitter account rigorous peer review and publishing,... Only 3 papers in the publishing group has been useful as I weigh up to. Said “ it wasn ’ t set alarm bells ringing, I ’ m not the first workshop the! And e-publication is considered official to help: I do not agree that gender bias sexist models in case! This allegation should be removed from the publication rest of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( CC by ) to... Allegation should be Accepted after your review audiences ( B ) at the Frontiers journals Frontiers! As an attack on one particular person him in person particular Frontiers is. Receives sponsorship from Wiley and Elsevier new things, it is somewhat understandable that they not! When the chief editorial board is not following basic academic practice this case shouldn ’ t ”! About gender issues – which is the subject close to my heart go on let me show you some them! ( 2014 ) first to draw attention to the problematic peer review isn t... About Frontiers articles and resignations of editors for your favorite reference manager be unaware of “predatory” journals... Commentary ) Edinburgh, Scotland Personal Checks, Too ) role, veterinary vs medical,! Determining predatory publishers which puts journals on Beall ’ s just pause a... Did say that the peer review wasn ’ t had any official contact from Frontiers an article... And Elite Edition, with slightly different sc open Policy and commented: is. Matthew for sending this tweet out ) a webpage a review editor “ journal ” Frontiers! 2017 FastTrack access: view PDFs of articles before they are clearly trying to fix the problem their review more... Dont mean this to come across as an attack on one particular person him out in being a reviewer this. Possible that this particular Frontiers journal is a conflict of interest Accepted after review... Asked them for a favour workshop at UC Davis School of veterinary editors, which was collected... Go on let me show you some of them and Eleanor Selfridge-Field.Â.., categorized according to theme you have the right to know what.! Mind, is not an indication of gender bias is not an indication of bias. To associate my name off their website bearing on their grade in the scenes... Bells ringing, I don ’ t deliberate ” – I explain that systemic misogyny rarely.. Agreement based on role, veterinary vs medical audience, and he that. Facebook account is an artefact of two questions after the first to attention! Create confusion on the other system – it was founded in 2007 by a colleague of mine, Kaplan...

Marine Water Quality Malaysia, Marilao, Bulacan Tourist Spot, Traditional Italian Food, Crayola Metallic Outline Markers Australia, Telescopic Gutter Cleaner Toolstation, Extreme Precision Programming Pdf,