Open Access
Volume 1, 2018
Article Number 1
Number of page(s) 3
Section Life Sciences – Medicine
Published online 01 June 2018
  1. Willinsky J, Wolfson L (2001), The indexing of scholarly journals: a tipping point for publishing reform? JEP 7. DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0007.202. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beall J (2015), What the Open-Access Movement Doesn't Want You to Know, American Association of University Professors (AAUP), [Google Scholar]
  3. Pinfield S (2013), Is scholarly publishing going from crisis to crisis, Learned Publishing, 26, 85–88. DOI:10.1087/20130204. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bagues MF, Sylos-Labini M, Zinovyeva N (2017), A Walk on the Wild Side: 'Predatory' Journals and Information Asymmetries in Scientific Evaluations, IZA DP No. 11041, 1–47. [Google Scholar]
  5. Grosheide FW (1998), The gentleman's agreement in legal theory and in modern practice : the Dutch civil law perspective published in Rapports néerlandais pour le quinzième congrès international de droit comparé, Intersentia Ltd., Cambridge, United Kingdom, 91–114 ISBN 90-5095-041-8. [Google Scholar]
  6. " gentleman" OED Online. (2017), Oxford University Press, June 2017, Web. 21 August 2017. [Google Scholar]
  7. Beall J (2012), Predatory Publishing: Overzealous open-access advocates are creating an exploitative environment, threatening the credibility of scholarly publishing, The Scientist August 1, [Google Scholar]
  8. Brücher BLDM (2018), Science Belongs to No One − And to Everyone, 4open 1(E1), 1–11. DOI: [Google Scholar]
  9. Science Publishing Group [Google Scholar]
  10. Beall J (2018), Chapter 12 Scientific soundness and the problem of predatory journals, in: Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, Kaufman AB & Kaufman JC (eds.), pp 183–300 ISBN: 9780262037426. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dorj J (2014), Mathematical proof of the law of karma, Am J Appl Math 2, 111–126. DOI: 10.11648/j.ajam.20140204.12. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Beall J (2016) Medical publishing and the threat of predatory journals, Int J Womens Dermatol 2, 115–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2016.08.002. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tosti A, Maddy AJ (2017), Ranking predatory journals in dermatology: distinguishing the bad from the ugly, Int J Dermatol 56, 718–720. DOI:10.1111/ijd.13644. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Oermann MH, Conklin JL, Nicoll LH, Chinn PL, Ashton KS, Edie AH, Amarasekara S, Budinger SC (2016), Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals, J Nurs Scholarsh 48, 624–632. DOI:10.1111/jnu.12248. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Beall J (2017), What I learned from predatory publishers, Biochemica Medica 27, 273–278. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.029. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Poynder R (2016), Open access will remain a half-revolution. [Interview by Michał Starczewski]. Retrieved from: [Google Scholar]
  17. Beall J (2013) The Open-Access movement is not really about open access, tripleC 11, 589–597. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.