Sat. Mar 23rd, 2019

Sciencedomain International: A bright example to solve predatory publication issues

Some open-access publishers publish papers while not critique to form straightforward cash. Some publishers publish articles in their journals at intervals one or 2 days once submission, provided publication charge is paid. These publishers even advertise in their web site and “calls for paper” that they’re going to publish the paper at intervals 1-4 days of submission. Jeffrey Beall, the Denver-based former professional, 1st coined the term “predatory publishing” in 2011, to spot such predatory journals. however at the later stage, his methodology to spot predatory journals was questioned. several academicians tried that Beall’s analysis was biased and inaccurate. Please see the connected discussion here: however no one will deny the contribution of Mr. Beall to spot the black aspect of open access erudite publication.

Therefore Sciencedomain International took some proactive steps to fight against the predatory publication downside ranging from 2011. Some distinguished operational principles of ‘Sciencedomain International’ are mentioned below and also the backgrounds of those steps are discussed.

Problem 1: Predatory publishers don’t do critique.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

1.1 OPEN Peer review:

‘Sciencedomain International’ journals follow a clear and sturdy OPEN peer review model. All peer review reports, comments of the editors and totally different versions of the manuscripts are created in public announce together with the revealed paper. This method eradicates any chance of malicious interference by the publisher to publish papers just for cash, by compromising educational quality. the most criticism against predatory publishers is that anybody will publish something by paying hefty cash. And predatory publishers compromise the peer review method or don’t do peer review to publish any paper. As ‘Sciencedomain International’ journals follow clear OPEN peer review model, therefore the main criteria of predatory commercial enterprise (i.e. absence of peer-review and quality control) can’t be applied against ‘Sciencedomain International’. terribly with courtesy we wish to inform that our peer review system isn’t excellent. however we have a tendency to powerfully wish to mention that we don’t follow the predatory publication model.

Some examples:


1.2 World noted Science Journal article authenticated high peer review commonplace of SDI journal

Now it’s obvious that each one publishers can highlight its brighter sides. however to ascertain the claim of a publisher, it should be authenticated by some third-party neutral agency. Please see that our claim of the high commonplace of peer review is echt by the world-famous Science journal article.  Please see the inquiring report here ( it absolutely was according that out of total 304 journals, solely twenty journals rejected the faux article once substantial peer review. we have a tendency to are happy that our journal was among these few triple-crown journals together with business leaders like PLoS One, Springer, BMC, MDPI, Hindawi, etc.

Problem 2: Predatory publishers don’t pay any attention to complaints once publication

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

2.1 POST-publication peer review:

The pre-publication peer review analysis system isn’t excellent and lots of academicians tried loop-holes of the peer review system. we have a tendency to additionally ne’er claimed that the critique system is ideal. however we’ve got tried to form it as clear as attainable. But still, we all know that there’ll be errors. thus we have a tendency to introduced additionally POST-publication critique system.  SDI journal Websites offer the power for users to discuss articles to facilitate community analysis and discourse around revealed articles. The comment section is especially dedicated to push “Post-publication peer review”. Please see here:  As a results of this “Post-publication peer review”, if authors agree and/or journal Editors agree (and/or SDI agrees) that any correction is important, then it’ll be revealed freed from value by following SDI Correction and Retraction policy (

2.2 Established Retraction Policy:

No journal within the world incorporates a hundred % excellent critique policy. it’s not expected from the publisher that it ought to work like fraud detection agency or faux paper detection agency. No publisher has that capability or enough resource for such activities. an instructional publisher is predicted to rearrange honest peer review, editorial screening, editing, formatting, publication, Department of the Interior registration, digital preservation of papers, compartmentalisation of revealed papers, etc. an instructional publisher depends on the integrity of the author for the submitted paper and experience of reviewers and editors throughout the peer review method. At any stage, an instructional publisher ought to ne’er influence the publication call by over-ruling the tutorial independence of the reviewers and editors. Therefore, a erudite publisher isn’t expected to publish solely 100 % excellent papers, because it depends on the author-reviewer-editor system. however an instructional publisher is often expected to figure promptly whenever a fraud/wrongdoing is according. If an instructional publisher sits idle once Associate in Nursing irreparable wrongdoing is according then the publisher is simply supporting the wrongdoing of the author. Such careless idle steps of the publisher rather encourage alternative dishonest authors to harbour their papers therewith publisher. Predatory publishers typically sit lazily by commercial enterprise faux papers and invite alternative dishonest authors to publish their papers by providing a secure shelter in exchange for publication charges. it’s expected that a real educational publisher ought to formally retract wrong papers/fake papers right away whenever according. Retraction may be a negative purpose for any publisher, however a real educational publisher ought to ne’er be afraid to retract such papers with official retraction notice. Sciencedomain International incorporates a terribly sturdy and official correction/retraction policy (see here: Sciencedomain International is decided to push integrity in analysis publication. we’ve got nice respect and that we usually follow the rules given by COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE) for any publication disputes, authorship disputes, fake paper, etc. Whenever such a significant downside is according, Sciencedomain International takes immediate action and formally retract the paper.

Problem 3: Predatory publishers use the name of the putative scientists while not consent and typically they don’t do internal control throughout the accomplishment of editors.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

3.1 clear Editorial Board:

All SDI journals have a clear editorial board. repeatedly predatory journals post the name of editors while not their consent. typically predatory journals publish fictitious editors. All SDI journals publish complete educational affiliation of all editors. in addition, SDI journals publish email ID, short history and link of the institutional webpage of editors for complete transparency. All communications with the editors are for good digitally preserved by SDI. together with the revealed paper, identity and comments of the tutorial editor are revealed. Therefore, terribly {politely|courteously|with courtesy|in a we have a tendency toll mannered way|with politeness} we wish to mention that we might not have the strongest editors of the planet, however we’ve got a extremely clear and active editorial board to keep up the standard of the journal.

3.2 World noted Nature journal article confirmed the high commonplace of SDI editors and journals

Now it’s necessary to produce the proof of the high commonplace of editors of SDI journals. we have a tendency to herewith offer the proof from a piece of world-famous NATURE journal article. one amongst our journals was additionally targeted by the authors of this NATURE article as a part of the flimflam. we have a tendency to are happy to tell that Nature (Impact Factor: forty one.6) article confirmed high commonplace of SDI journal and its editors.  Please, browse the inquiring report here (

Problem 4: Predatory publishers claim false compartmentalisation standing, show false impact issue, highlight Thomson Reuters investigator ID as proof of compartmentalisation in ISI, etc.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

4.1 clear compartmentalisation information: an obsessive indexing team of Sciencedomain International is functioning to incorporate all of our journals in putative indexing services or journal analysis services or catalogue or reference citations, etc. Sciencedomain International additionally advises that authors ought to see the believability of claims of compartmentalisation before submitting their manuscripts to any publisher (including SDI). SDI powerfully encourages authors to require ‘informed decision’ before submission of any manuscript. so as to assist the authors to require ‘informed decision’, SDI is providing web-links/proofs beside most of the claims of compartmentalisation or journal analysis services. additionally, authors ought to visit the official website of the compartmentalisation organization or journal analysis services before submitting any manuscript. we’ve got ne’er applied to own a false impact issue (like international impact factor, etc) for our journals and that we ne’er show false impact issue of journals to cheat the authors. we have a tendency to ne’er publicized  Thomson Reuters analysis ID ( as proof of our ISI compartmentalisation. we have a tendency to hope the erudite community can appreciate our efforts to keep up integrity and transparency. Please see our steps here:

Problem 5: Predatory publishers don’t offer clear data relating to publication charges. They ne’er offer data associated with publication charge before or simply once submission. they begin stern cash once the publication.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

5.1 clear Publication Charge: At Sciencedomain International, we have a tendency to clearly and in public offer all data relating to publication charge ( Publication charge connected all clear data is previous provided to any or all authors.

Problem 6: Predatory publishers don’t offer clear data relating to the place of Head-Quarters of the publisher and actual place of operation. They additionally don’t reveal the name of the publisher.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

6.1 in public on the market Headquarters address: Sciencedomain International clearly displays data relating to registered address and Head-Quarters within the contact page. Sciencedomain International additionally provides the name of the publisher and speak to details. Please see here:

Problem 7: Predatory publishers don’t offer attention to the satisfaction of authors. Actually, they harass the authors in numerous stages of publication. they’re additionally not clear relating to client satisfaction.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

7.1 Direct posting of author feedback: At Sciencedomain International, we have a tendency to believe that quality peer review ought to attract appreciation from all authors, regardless of the character of the review call (i.e. Acceptance or Rejection). Testimonials of the authors are bestowed in public on our web site. From 06-04-2016, Sciencedomain has provided direct comment posting feature within the web site. Authors, UN agency wish to share their expertise directly, will use this feature. we have a tendency to welcome any reasonably feedback (positive or negative). but this direct expertise sharing facility, authors can even share their expertise via email, which is able to be announce by our IT staffs. we have a tendency to are proud to mention that we take the satisfaction of authors terribly seriously. this might be the explanation of our lowest attainable “Credit Card Charge reversal and Dispute” cases against USA (in some year we’ve got zero such cases). Please see here:

Problem 8: Predatory publishers don’t offer attention to the satisfaction of reviewers and ne’er maintain transparency (if they are doing peer review)

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

8.1 clear data and recognition of reviewers: we have a tendency to follow the most effective attainable business commonplace for reviewer satisfaction. altogether revealed papers, we have a tendency to publish the name of the reviewers and additionally in public publish the review reports together with revealed papers. we have a tendency to additionally in public publish the list of reviewers yearly once. noted Publons (a a part of Thomson Reuters Clarivate Analytics), additionally confirmed the high commonplace and transparency of critique system of SDI journals. There are over forty,000 educational journals worldwide. As per Publons web site, vi journals from ‘Sciencedomain International’ was placed among prime a thousand journals and thirty eight journals from ‘Sciencedomain International’ was placed among top 3000 journals like Nature, Science, PlosOne, BMJ, etc. Please see here:  (website accessed on 09-07-2018).

Problem 9: Predatory publishers are less attentive relating to plagiarism checking, formatting, etc

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

9.1 Established Plagiarism Policy: SCIENCEDOMAIN international powerfully opposes the observe of duplicate publication or any sort of plagiarism. SCIENCEDOMAIN international aims to publish original high-quality analysis work. plagiaristic manuscripts wouldn’t be thought of for publication. If plagiarism is found in any revealed paper once an enclosed investigation and afterwards the paper are retracted. Plagiarism policy of this journal is especially impressed by the plagiarism policy of the character. Please see here for a lot of information:

Problem 10: Predatory publishers incorrectly claim attachment with noted educational establishments just like the publication of analysis papers from putative universities, etc

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

10.1 position authors: High commonplace of SDI journals has attracted authors from world noted universities like Harvard University, Columbia, Cambridge University, University of Chicago,  UC Berkeley,  Göttingen University, etc. we have a tendency to are appreciative to authors for keeping religion in our clear high commonplace critique method, high editorial commonplace, etc. Sciencedomain publishes an inventory of authors, UN agency have revealed a minimum of one paper in any SDI journal. A link of the revealed paper has been supplied with the name of the author(s) for verification. This list is partial. Please see here:

Problem 11: Predatory publishers don’t offer attention for permanent digital archiving of revealed papers

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

11.1 Permanent digital preservation policy: Sciencedomain International is happy to announce that each one our journals are currently for good archived in Journal Repository (JR). Journal Repository (JR) is among the quickest growing community-supported digital archives within the world. Please see here:

Problem 12: Predatory publishers don’t offer attention to follow “Principles of Transparency and Best observe in erudite Publishing”, introduced by OASPA, COPE, DOAJ and WAME

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to unravel this downside.

12.1 Self-compliance report publication: wonderful pointers relating to ‘Principles of Transparency and Best observe in scholarly Publishing’ are established by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access scholarly Publishers Association and also the World Association of Medical Editors. we have a tendency to sincerely give thanks OASPA-DOAJ-COPE-WAME for this nice effort. Sciencedomain International feels that we have a tendency to should follow these pointers and will in public publish a ‘self-compliance report’ for public and scholarly scrutiny. We’ll cordially welcome any valuable feedback to boost our journal. A comment section is accessible below the self-compliance info. We’ll be happy to receive ‘peer-review report’ relating to our journal. Please see here for a lot of details:

At Sciencedomain International, we have a tendency to are terribly open relating to any suggestion. we have a tendency to hope that scholarly communities perceive that we are terribly keen to boost. We’ll be very appreciative to erudite communities if they are available forward with some extra steps/suggestions, which is able to facilitate USA to boost true.