Showing papers by "Jeffrey Beall published in 2012"
TL;DR: The authors argue that journals that exploit the author-pays model damage scholarly publishing and promote unethical behaviour by scientists, arguing that the model encourages unethical behavior by scientists and encourages plagiarism.
Abstract: Journals that exploit the author-pays model damage scholarly publishing and promote unethical behaviour by scientists, argues Jeffrey Beall.
643 citations
31 Oct 2012
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show that the world of scholarly communication is resolutely shifting from a toll-access to an open-access publishing model, and that there are many who are fraudulently corrupting this model for their own gain.
Abstract: In this paper, I show that the world of scholarly communication is resolutely shifting from a toll-access to an open-access publishing model, that there are many who are fraudulently corrupting this model for their own gain, and that the transition to open access will bring fundamental changes to scholarly societies' roles in the scholarly communication process, changes that will introduce new challenges and promising opportunities.
18 citations
TL;DR: This review critically examines five international scholarly publishers that publish academic journals using the gold (author pays) Open Access model, and covers four predatory publishers, Academy Publish, BioInfo, ScienceDomain International, and Scientific Research Publishing, and one legitimate publisher, AOSIS Open Journals.
Abstract: This review critically examines five international scholarly publishers that publish academic journals using the gold (author pays) Open Access model. The author-pays model is changing scholarly publishing because authors, rather than libraries or other subscribers, become the publishers' customers, an arrangement that creates a built in conflict of interest. The more articles a publisher accepts, the more revenue it earns. New gold Open Access publishers are appearing almost weekly, and many are engaged in unethical practices. The review covers four predatory publishers, Academy Publish, BioInfo, ScienceDomain International, and Scientific Research Publishing, and one legitimate publisher, AOSIS Open Journals.
14 citations