INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND NETWORK SECURITY eISSN 1738-7906 is indexed in web of science. But this journal is listed in the predatory list and Beall's list. This particular journal is not listed in SCOPUS and SCIMAGO. How about the authenticity and scholarly of this particular Journal
Dear Meera Muhiadeen Rifaudeen ,
The journal “International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security” (http://ijcsns.org/ ) is indeed mentioned in the Beall’s list (https://beallslist.net/standalone-journals/) this is a warning sign that you might deal with a suspect journal. There are more red flags:
-The prominently mentioned CiteFactor is a well-known so-called misleading metrics (https://beallslist.net/misleading-metrics/) often used by predatory journals
-Contact makes use of a Gmail address
-Disturbing example of a plagiarized paper https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00515.html
-The received and revised data for each paper look fake (and suggests a way too short peer review period)
Indeed, it is mentioned in the ESCI database of Clarivate, but do realise that this is the least renowned index from Clarivate. Journals listed here are eligible for a possible impact factor but only when they enter the SCIE/SSCI from Clarivate (the people who now owned the Web of Science) a real impact factor is assigned. Looking at all warning signs I would say: avoid.
Best regards.
Dear Pham Quy Giang
,You are right. A recent and highly interesting paper:
Article Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences
identified several hundreds of (potentially) predatory journals in the Scopus list (according to the Beall's list). A recent analysis using their identified journal titles:
Article When it comes to predatory journals, is Scopus doing a good ...
demonstrated that to date two third of these titles are discontinued. For those interested also follow the following discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Scopus_doing_a_good_job_in_identifying_and_dealing_with_predatory_journals
Conclusion is that indeed Scopus agrees with the Beall’s list in quite a number of cases but there are cases where Scopus either disagree or missed a predatory journal. The “Frontiers journals” is (also according to the paper in the first link) one of the most prominent examples where the Beall’s list is wrong. So, the Beall’s list is not flawless and personally I use it as a first indication to see whether a closer look is necessary.
Best regards.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism