Usually I receive two types of invitations both for submitting an article and for reviewing. There are certain journals which publish within a week and I think the basic problem of these journals is scientific reviewing process. So in order to curb these journals the reviewing process needs to be streamlined. Nowadays the reviewing process is getting worse as those fellows who haven't yet published also receive the review invitations (in spam) and many a times they review some of the articles without having the technical know-how of the peer review process which often brings technically incorrect publications to the fore and mislead the scientific community. So in order to curb these things, some criteria should be framed at national and international levels for selection of a reviewer to review a particular article . After following the set criteria each journal should have the permanent reviewers for different subject matters. In this way the peer review process can be be streamlined. So when this is streamlined there will be no room for faulty journals to come on board.

Subrata,

The only check is by either experience I.e. I get approached daily by a number of 'new' journals wanting me to submit to them - or by attaching yourself to a team that has the experience. Unless journals are reasonably established and have a peer-discipline reputation - then I am always going to be wary of them and avoid them. If an established editor whose credentials I know and trust invites me to submit, then I may well do. Otherwise, I will look on and wait - and continue to submit to the 'traditional' journals that have a history and reputation born out of a more sound business and work ethic model.

Yes that's how we do it day in day out. but my question is not at the individual level, but at a larger context. There should be some mechanism to stop these new sub standard journals to go ahead. Just like a new manuscript is reviewed all new journals should also be subjected to some kind of check(s) before they are allowed to enter .

Unfortunately there is no institution to check if journals are good or not: nowadays, anyone can establish a new journal and publish whatever is sent for whatever fee. So, the only way to stop this would be to ignore such journals: if nobody agrees to send their papers there and pay fees, they will go out of business. Unfortunately, some universites are not good enough (e.g. they do not have access to databases of well-known publishers), and their staff cannot publish in normal (good quality) journals, so, they publish in predatory journals, thus, such journals will not disappear soon.

Subrata, I don't think the world of publishing can be regulated in the way we would like. A world in which there are only "good" journals. Educating researchers in the perils in publishing in sub standard journals would help. Supporting and promoting journals that have a credible OA offering would also help. Encouraging researchers to do some basic check on publishers is a useful defence for the unwary. Never for example respond to an unsolicited call for papers. I get a few of these myself. The good in my view will drive out the bad in the end, provided we keep the subject under discussion. Any one reading the numerous postings on RG for example would learn a lot! BW Matt

Hi Subrata

I believe these can not be regulated by any agency as everybody is free to launch an online journal which can publish any type of papers and make a full fledged publication house with lot of journals in different subject areas. I know a lot of them where if you publish your paper, the paper is not going to get any credit finally. Just because there is a craving need for the students and scholars to publish their papers, such journals are flourishing. These journal will have all the ISSN no. and would be cited in some established forums just by paying some money once or may be yearly. They can even get some impact factor which is also given by some agencies which are not accepted in scientific community as a whole. They will display these information on their websites and the students will trust that this is a recognized journal by so and so agency etc. Many times the management of journal doesn't have any scientific background. They just write the name of some professors whom they know (of course after informing them) as their editors and the things continue. Nobody knows that the person who is specified as the editor is not even handling their submissions. This has become a business which is very popular now-a-days.

The only solution is to refrain from publishing in such journals and let them raise their publication standards through appropriate peer review and develop some genuine standards of publishing. Once their business starts suffering they will try to mimic the 'good' journals if they really want to continue. Otherwise due to loss of business, they will die out in due course of time as suggested by Dr. Tila.

More strict option would be to refrain from paying for publication. Just publish in those journals which are well known or "traditional" as mentioned by Dr. Dean. If no one agrees to pay who is going to entertain such journals. May be you have to wait for publishing your paper in a peer reviewed journal, but that wait would be far better than wasting your valuable research in new unidentified journals.

Regards

Usually I receive two types of invitations both for submitting an article and for reviewing. There are certain journals which publish within a week and I think the basic problem of these journals is scientific reviewing process. So in order to curb these journals the reviewing process needs to be streamlined. Nowadays the reviewing process is getting worse as those fellows who haven't yet published also receive the review invitations (in spam) and many a times they review some of the articles without having the technical know-how of the peer review process which often brings technically incorrect publications to the fore and mislead the scientific community. So in order to curb these things, some criteria should be framed at national and international levels for selection of a reviewer to review a particular article . After following the set criteria each journal should have the permanent reviewers for different subject matters. In this way the peer review process can be be streamlined. So when this is streamlined there will be no room for faulty journals to come on board.

Yes "Tiia Vissakis" absolutely righ when she says.

"unfortunately, some universites are not good enough (e.g. they do not have access to databases of well-known publishers), and their staff cannot publish in normal (good quality) journals, so, they publish in predatory journals, thus, such journals will not disappear soon".

So it is about time that some kind of regulator, through which journals can be degraded and stopped be establishjed. How that will be done is another matter.

Subrata,

You have edited one issue of the Assam Statistical Review. You may have rejected certain articles based on comments of referees. Obviously, you have become slightly unpopular already. In spite of all your efforts, what have you got in return?

Fact is, journal publication has become money oriented in recent times. The publishers and editors of such money oriented journals get some money at least in return! That is the point!

Quality acceptance to be made global : http://ijaridea.com/Web-of-Knowledge