Are open access journals legit for my CV?

[EternalStudent]

One obvious disadvantage of Open Access Journals is that you have to pay for it. However, paying would have been worth it if it were to give me something I can cite on my CV. And this brings me to the following question: would citing open access journals on my CV help me at all? In particular, I am thinking about the following two journals:

1. International Journal of Quantum Foundations
2. Universe, ISSN 2218-1997, IF 2.165

Please let me know what you think about those.

 

[bigfooted]

1. check if it has an impact factor. If I check with google, Universe seems to have an impact factor of 2, which is OK.
2. check if it is on Beall's list of predatory journals. Neither are in them.

I don't know these journals, but this is the first I'd do for any journal I'm not personally familiar with.

 

[f95toli]

It is becoming increasingly common that funding agencies require the output of the projects they fund to be published in open-access journals.
This has led to the creation of lots of new journals over the past few years, some are indeed predatory but there are also quite a few really good ones (PNAS, Nature Communications etc).
Hence, "open access" does not automatically imply "bad".

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

I second the opinion that open access does not mean bad, and in fact is to me not an indicator of quality at all (though this may vary from field to field, for me most relevant journals are open access).

Here are some things for you to consider:

1) Are these the journals where research in your field is typically published, and is it accepted as a source by other researcher in your field? I.e., are the articles you read during your research and cited in your articles also published there? If not, why did you choose to publish there? (Of course, if yes, it could just be that one is producing crackpottery based on others crackpottery).

2) As you indicated that you already published with them, you probably deep down know the answer anyway. How was the review process? Did you get critical feedback on your submissions that were written by (an) expert(s) in the field having read your manuscript thoroughly? Did it help you improve your articles? Would you, after knowing the review process, trust an article published by this journals (more than just an unpublished manuscript)?

 

[Vanadium 50]

check if it is on Beall's list of predatory journals. Neither are in them.

One is an MDPI journal, and MDPI is widely thought of as the reason that Beall's list no longer exists.

I looked at a few articles, and my opinion is, whether or not these journals are "predatory", they are of extraordinarily low quality. As for whether or not to put them on your CV, that's up to you.

 

[ZapperZ]

One obvious disadvantage of Open Access Journals is that you have to pay for it.

Back up a bit.

Practically all journals, be it open access or not, have publication fees. So why is this a "disadvantage" only to open access journals?

However, paying would have been worth it if it were to give me something I can cite on my CV. And this brings me to the following question: would citing open access journals on my CV help me at all? In particular, I am thinking about the following two journals:

1. International Journal of Quantum Foundations
2. Universe, ISSN 2218-1997, IF 2.165

Please let me know what you think about those.

The prestige of a journal depends on its history, quality, and the audience that it reaches. It has nothing to do on whether it is open access or not. In accelerator science, other than Nature/Science/PRL, Physical Review Accelerator and Beams is a highly respected journal for that field, and it is an open access journal! The same can be said for Physical Review Physics Education Research, which is one of the premier journals for PER.

The criteria that you are using to gauge the level of a journal is all wrong. Pick a field of study, preferably the one you are in, and see what journals are commonly used. Those are the journals you want to publish in and cite in your CV, not whether it is open access or not.

Zz.

 

[EternalStudent]

As you indicated that you already published with them, you probably deep down know the answer anyway

Actually, I haven't published papers with them. I am only considering whether I should.

Here is how these journals came up:

1) I had one paper regarding ontology of a wave function in Fock space that I couldn't get published in the past. Now the types of journals I was sending it to was Physics Review D. But few weeks ago I had an idea that maybe I should look for a journal specifically devoted to quantum foundations. So I searched for it on google and found "International Jounral of Quantum Foundation", so I sent it there. Now, few days ago the editor of the journal said that referee thinks it should be published (but he didn't show me the copy of referee report) and he also added that he agrees that this paper is "interesting", and made his own suggestion as to what I should add before he publishes it. I found it weird because, with all the other journals, the referees are the ones who suggest what to add, not the editors. But this time they didn't even let me read the referee report and the editor was the one making a suggeston of his own. The other thing is that, normally when I get a feedback, there is a long list of different corrections, but here there was just one suggestion -- which is weird since the paper is 38 page long and in fact when I was fixing it for that suggestion I found some mistakes on my own which are rather obvious but which neither referee nor editor seen. So then I decided to look at the journal more closely and then I saw that it has a publication fee of 300 dollars, and this is what made me wonder whether this jounral is legit or not since other journals didn't ask me to pay for publication. The other troubling thing that I saw is that, in the description of how that journal works, it says that certain people that are part of that group can simply submit the PDF papers without review and only people outside that group have peer review + 300 dollar fee. So if some people can submit it without review, how is it any better than arXiv (and I have that paper on the arXiv already). But, on a flip side, when I look at the editor board, they listed Carlo Rovelli among others. So since Carlo Rovelli is well known physicist, it would have to be legit. So I don't really know what to think. In any case, I only found the 300 dollar fee yesterday -- but I sent to the editor my corrections to the paper, with the addition that he suggested, the day before yesterday. He said it will be processed ASAP, but I didn't hear back from him yet. I guess its a good sign: since they are taking their time it means they do take a professional look at it. In any case, since he is still in the stage of processing it, he haven't asked me to pay yet (I found that fee all on my own). So my current intention is to wait until I hear from him again and the moment he asks to pay -- refuse to pay. Do you think this would be a good move, or what would you suggest?

2) As far as the Journal Universe goes, there was a *different* paper that I wrote. I uploaded that paper to the arXiv and then the next day I sent it to the "Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity". But then, the next day after I sent it, I was contacted by the editor of Journal Universe who saw my paper on the arXiv suggesting I publish it in his journal. No, he did NOT know that I sent it to "Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity". His ONLY source of information was the arXiv. So I simply told him that I already sent it to "Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity" and I am waiting for their feedback. If it happens that they refuse this paper (which I don't know yet one way or the other) then I will send it to him. He responded by simply wishing me luck with "Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity" and saying I will be welcome to send it to him if this doesn't work out. But now I have a question: should I really do that if that were to happen, or should I look for some other journal?

 

[ZapperZ]

Why are there warning bells ringing all over the place here?

Zz.

 

[EternalStudent]

Practically all journals, be it open access or not, have publication fees.

That is not what my experience has been. So far I have four publications at the following journals:

Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity
Physics Review D
Journal of Foundations of Physics
Journal of Mathematical Physics

None of them required publication fee. Although, at the same time, the only one of those where I was a single author was Journal of Foundation of Physics one. So its possible that with the other three publications my co-authors have paid. But I highly doubt it, because if that was the case, there would be some discussion on how we are to split our payment or something, which there was none.

One thing I *do* remember though is that when I submit the paper to one of those journals, they all say that *if* I choose my papers to be open access, *then* I would have to pay the fee. But making it open access was optional, not required. So that's why I am thinknig that open access journals are "forcing" me to pay the fee by "requiring" said open access (that is optional otherwise).

I also remember, few years ago, I "almost" had my paper published in one of the open access journals, until a few different people I talked to stopped me from doing that, precisely on the basis that the journal was fake. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of that journal -- so it probably was *not* either of these two journals I am talking about now. But here is what happened. I submitted a paper there, and then I got referee report, with recommendation to publish it. But one thing I noticed in that report is that the referee said "In this paper the author did such and such" but instead of "such and such" he just cut and pasted some portions of my abstract. So why did he have to cut and paste the abstract instead of summarizing it in his own words? He then said the paper was worthy of publication. And that was all there was in that review. He didn't give any of his own thoughts or suggestions -- which is also weird. Then the editor asked me to pay publication fee. So I was surprised about the publication fee and asked a few people I know, and they all said the journal was fake. I remember one person said "If they ask you to pay, don't pay". So that phrase suggests that most legit journals are free.

But like I said, that is not the journal I am talking about now. That was few years ago and I don't remember its name. The reason I am suspicious of the journals now is because I remember that quote "if they ask you to pay don't pay".

 

[ZapperZ]

That is not what my experience has been. So far I have four publications at the following journals:

Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity
Physics Review D
Journal of Foundations of Physics
Journal of Mathematical Physics

https://journals.aps.org/prd/authors#postaccept

I suggest you read very carefully the guidelines of each of those journals. How do you think they pay for all the work that needs to be done in administrating each of those journals?

Zz.

 

[EternalStudent]

https://journals.aps.org/prd/authors#postaccept

I suggest you read very carefully the guidelines of each of those journals. How do you think they pay for all the work that needs to be done in administrating each of those journals?

Zz.

But the fact is that, in the first three of these four journals, I published few years ago. So if they were to have me pay, they would have had me pay back then -- which they clearly didn't.

The only recent one is Journal of Mathematical Physics. This one published my paper online this June and the hard copy is to come out in June 30. So far, they didn't ask me to pay anything either. I don't know if my co-author was asked to pay, but it would be weird if he was, and didn't make any indication about splitting the cost.

 

[ZapperZ]

But the fact is that, in the first three of these four journals, I published few years ago. So if they were to have me pay, they would have had me pay back then -- which they clearly didn't.

The only recent one is Journal of Mathematical Physics. This one published my paper online this June and the hard copy is to come out in June 30. So far, they didn't ask me to pay anything either. I don't know if my co-author was asked to pay, but it would be weird if he was, and didn't make any indication about splitting the cost.

Many of the non-profit journals, such as those run by the APS, do not force you to pay. But there ARE publication costs! If you were the first author, then they will inform you of the publication costs after your manuscript has been accepted for publication. Most research grants will include expenses for journal publication. If you do not pay, then you are shifting your share of the responsibility to others, i.e. the rest of us who did pay were "supporting" you.

But this is besides the point. The fact is that there IS a publication cost for these journals, open-access or not.

Zz.

 

[EternalStudent]

Many of the non-profit journals, such as those run by the APS, do not force you to pay. But there ARE publication costs!

This sounds like a contradiction. What do you mean by having publication costs without forcing me to pay?

In any case, it just occurred to me how the journals -- that are not open access -- finance their publications. Since they are not open access, the people who want to read my paper would have to pay in order to read it. So they get the money from them. But if they are open access, then the people who want to read it can read it for free. So then they have to get the money from me instead, by having the publication fee.

 

[ZapperZ]

This sounds like a contradiction. What do you mean by having publication costs without forcing me to pay?

Don't believe me. Read the page I gave you from the APS webpage. I'm not making this up. And I have published in PRL, PRB, and PRAB, and we paid the publication costs for each one of them. These are FACTS that happened.

You may not have paid a cent, but it doesn't mean the publication costs didn't exist. You chose to ignore it.

In any case, it just occurred to me how the journals -- that are not open access -- finance their publications. Since they are not open access, the people who want to read my paper would have to pay in order to read it. So they get the money from them. But if they are open access, then the people who want to read it can read it for free. So then they have to get the money from me instead, by having the publication fee.

PRX, PRAB, and PRPER are all APS journals (and follow the same general APS publication guidelines), but they are also open access journals! It means that you can also ignore their publication fees if your conscience allows it!

Zz.

 

[EternalStudent]

You may not have paid a cent, but it doesn't mean the publication costs didn't exist. You chose to ignore it.

If I were to ignore the existing costs, then they wouldn't have published my papers -- but they did.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why are there warning bells ringing all over the place here?

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

So I searched for it on google and found "International Jounral of Quantum Foundation", so I sent it there.

So no, other people doing research relevant to your work are not publishing there?

But, on a flip side, when I look at the editor board, they listed Carlo Rovelli among others.

Did you try to confirm this?

But then, the next day after I sent it, I was contacted by the editor of Journal Universe who saw my paper on the arXiv suggesting I publish it in his journal.

From my experience, emails asking you to publish “your article ..., which we have found to be of extraordinary quality” in this and that journal are basically the academics world equivalent of offers to get certain parts of your body enlarged, and I treat them in the same way.

 

[EternalStudent]

So no, other people doing research relevant to your work are not publishing there?

When I looked at the papers in that journal, I saw that most of them "were" relevant to my field of study. But saying that "most entities of set A are in set B" does not imply that "most entities of set B are in set A". So I have no idea how popular that journal is among people of my field of study. What I can tell is that that journal is a "subset" of my field of study, but it can be a very small subset.

One thing that speaks in favor of that journal is that some of my work (including that paper I was trying to publish) is focused on ontology of wave function. I find that most people (even within quantum foundation) don't seem to do this sort of thing. But if I look at the papers in that journal then I see *a lot* of them on that topic, without even having to look too hard.

But, of course, none of this would count if that journal is fake. Hence my question.

Did you try to confirm this?

How would I do it? Are you suggesting I email Carlo Rovelli? In my experience when I email physicists that don't know me, they normally don't reply to my emails.

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

What I meant is that it is not relevant to you in the sense that the articles that you read and cite in your papers are not published there, otherwise you would not have to google for it.

How would I do it? Are you suggesting I email Carlo Rovelli? In my experience when I email physicists that don't know me, they normally don't reply to my emails.

You are the one who wants to judge a journal based on them writing famous names on their webpage. Anyway, he appears to have a CV online http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/ ...

 

[EternalStudent]

What I meant is that it is not relevant to you in the sense that the articles that you read and cite in your papers are not published there, otherwise you would not have to google for it.

I can always add the new references to my paper -- which I often do anyway. The fact that I didn't see them on the first place is not an indication of anything since I am not typically keeping track of other people's work. I know that's what I should change in the future and learn to read other people's work more regularly, but the question is what to do in the here and now in terms of deciding whether to let them publish my paper or not.

You are the one who wants to judge a journal based on them writing famous names on their webpage.

If the journal was legit, then I wouldn't care one way or the other. But since I am doubting its legitimacy, then having a famous name as one of its editor might refute my doubts.

 

[berkeman]

I can always add the new references to my paper -- which I often do anyway. The fact that I didn't see them on the first place is not an indication of anything since I am not typically keeping track of other people's work.

Sorry, what does that mean?

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

So either they are willing to publish an article from someone who does not know most of the current literature on the relevant field, or the other articles they already have in this field are so low quality that they are not relevant. Does not sound great to me either way.

 

[EternalStudent]

Sorry, what does that mean?

Since they haven't published it yet, I can add those references to the new version of my file and ask them to publish the new version (*IF* I decide to publish there, that is).

 

[EternalStudent]

So either they are willing to publish an article from someone who does not know most of the current literature on the relevant field, or the other articles they already have in this field are so low quality that they are not relevant. Does not sound great to me either way.

There are hundrids of journals, what would be the probability that I would cite from any specific one? In that particular paper I cited 11 papers. But this is actually on the very low side in terms of how much I cite. Normally I cite between 20 and 40 papers.

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

There are hundrids of journals

Normally I cite between 20 and 40 papers

So far I have four publications

So, basically you never cited two articles published in the same journal?But you are missing my point anyway. I did’t say you should add a reference to the journal you are going to publish in. The fact that you didn’t even hear about the journal while doing your research, despite it having an exceptional high density of potentially relevant articles as you said, means

either they are willing to publish an article from someone who does not know most of the current literature on the relevant field, or the other articles they already have in this field are so low quality that they are not relevant.

 

[Vanadium 50]

How would I do it? Are you suggesting I email Carlo Rovelli? In my experience when I email physicists that don't know me, they normally don't reply to my emails.

Well, you could Google him, go to his web site, download his CV and have a look. I did. Took two minutes.

You will discover "International Journal of Quantum Foundations" is not listed, although fifteen others are. I don't know why you are so hell-bent on publishing in what is obviously a low-quality, if not outright predatory journal. If that's the only place that will take your paper, maybe you shouldn't be publishing it anywhere.

 

[berkeman]

This is fun!

 

[jedishrfu]

There are so many warning bells here with respect to this journal and this editor but the OP is the mark and the mark never sees the con until it’s too late.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sting
The fact that they didnt see your mistakes, the fact that you didn’t get a referee report, the fact that the editor is in contact with you doesn’t counterbalance the time they are now taking Nor does having Carlo Rovelli listed as part of the editorial Review board. Carlo may not know or if he knows can’t do anything about it.

Imagine for a moment that the journal is a one man operation and that he has several author marks interested in publishing papers so now he’s spending time negotiating with each one to insure he’ll get his $300 fee and then you might never hear from him again or he’ll tell you that it’ll be in a future journal the real soon now...

Basically, he has your paper and he has your money what more can he ask for?

As an aside, I once dealt with a software company where I was transferred from customer support to technical support. It turns out it was mom and pop operation where the wife answered the phone and passed the call to her husband if it was something technical as she handled sales.

This journal could well be like that and you have to trust your intuition here.

Lastly, one other consideration is that you may tie your paper up in some kind of legal knot where you can't publish it elsewhere because they now own the copyright.

Cue the music:

 

[f95toli]

This sounds like a contradiction. What do you mean by having publication costs without forcing me to pay?

They will ask you to pay and most universities and institutes will. However, they are also aware of the fact that there are many scientist out there who might not have access to much money, meaning they will publish the paper even if the fee is not paid.
I guess you could call it a form of charity, but it also ensures that scientists with good manuscripts don't go elsewhere because of the costs.

 

[atyy]

Rovelli is not listed on the current editorial board of International Journal of Quantum Foundations. He is listed as a past member.
https://www.ijqf.org/editorial-board

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

Rovelli is not listed on the current editorial board of International Journal of Quantum Foundations. He is listed as a past member.

I don't know what your point here is, but on his cv he lists his current and past editorial board memberships. Neither contain said journal.

 

[DrClaude]

Maximilian Schlosshauer is listed as a member of the editorial board and mentions it in his cv.

However, considering how your manuscript has been handled, I would remove it from consideration at IJQF, telling the editor that you found some errors that need to be corrected, which is the case. Once corrected, submit it somewhere else. There are some better journals dealing with the foundations of QM.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The fewer publications one has on their CV, the more the quality of the journals matters - at least once one has finished their PhD.

Some of the undergrad research I've mentored has been published in journals most would recognize as below average. We reckon that for undergrad scholarships and graduate admissions, publishing in those journals was better than not publishing at all or publishing in dedicated "undergrad" research journals.

And since I'm a co-author, those papers are on my CV also. But I'm not worried since I have plenty of publications in top tier journals. I can also point out that I have 50+ publications with undergrad co-authors. At this stage in my career, I reckon that may help if I apply for a faculty job where being an undergrad research guru is an appealing feature.

I'm in a frequent position to advise students and colleagues on the trade-offs between likely rejections and delays from submitting to higher tier journals and the reputation issues of lower-tier journals. Often, if a student or colleague would benefit from a paper being accepted before their next job, scholarship, or admissions application, a lower-tier journal is recommended. But I don't recommend journals I reckon would hurt their next application. Below a certain level of quality, it's better simply to have it at arXiv and "under review" at a higher tier journal than accepted by some of the poorer journals. If the parties reviewing the application really care, they can go to arXiv and read the paper and judge the quality for themselves.

 

[EternalStudent]

I would like to thank all of you for your feedback. As an update, I received an email from that journal with "proof" and a request to submit the corrections within 48 hours. I responded to that email by listing my doubts and asking the editor to address them. Here is what I wrote:

Dear Professor Shan,

Unfortunately when I was submitting this paper to you, I didn't take a careful look at the website of this journal. But now that I looked at it more carefully, I would like to clarify the following questions before deciding whether or not to publish my paper here:

1) I seen in the description of your journal that members can upload papers without peer review process. Does this imply that a paper in this journal is more similar to arXiv than to proper publication? I already have the paper I sent you on the arXiv. My purpose of trying to publish it in the journal is to give it more credibility due to the peer review nature of that journal. I realize that in my case my paper did go through peer review, since I am not a member, but how would the people that read my paper know it? The fact that "some" people can post it without peer review, would it take it away from the level of credibility I am seeking?

2) If the answer to Quesiton 1 is, indeed, that your journal is similar to arXiv, does it mean that I would be allowed to publish it in your journal and in another journal at the same time -- just like I am allowed to publish it in the arXiv and in a journal at the same time? If the answer is no, wouldn't it be a "bad" thing that I would basically prevent myself from publishing it elsewhere by publishing it in your journal yet, at the same time, won't be able to cite it as a publication on my CV?

3) Speaking of peer review process, when I was submitting my papers to other journals, I would typically receive a referee reports with detailed list of thins I have to address. But in case of submitting it to your journal, you didn't actually send me the referee report (you simply informed me that the referee was in favor) and then gave your own suggestion what to add. In fact, this was the one thing that made me look at your journal more closely. In particular I began to woner whether peer review process in your journal is less detailed than the other ones and whether it would take away from the credibility of the papers published in your journal.

4) When I look at the editorial board of your journal, I see Carlo Rovelli there. But when I look at Carlo Rovelli's website, I don't see him listing your journal, although he listed lots of other journals. Can you show me an independent verification that the list of people on your editorial board is accurate?

Thank you

 

[ZapperZ]

You can't be THIS desperate!

Zz.

 

[EternalStudent]

Update: I received a response quoted below. In light of this response I would like to ask you the following:

A. What do you think of the answers he gave me?

B. If I do decide to cancel it, should I still pay (due to what he said at the bottom of the email) or should I just ignore him and not pay? By the way, the reason he gave me for paying him is that he will have to pay the referee for reading my paper. But the thing is that I have been referee myself (NOT for his journal but RATHER for Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity) and the journal didn't pay me for being a referee. Do you think this policy changes from journal to journal and in his case he has to pay his referees? Or do you think he is simply not telling the truth?

Anyway, here is his response:

Thanks for your query. Here is my brief answers.

1. Yes, members can post their preprint papers on the IJQF website. But this is not the journal.

2. IJQF is a normal journal, not like arXiv. You can cite the paper in your CV, as many others did.

3. The answer is partially true, since I don't believe in much the peer review process based on my 30 years experience in the field. (Some of my own papers have been rejected by the oponents for many years) As an editor of IJQF, I encourage more speculative papers. I usually just asked a member to check the math details. This is an advantage of IJQF. I think the credibility is based on the real value of a paper, not on the opinions of the reviewers. Besides, many members of IJQF will read the papers pubished in the journal, since I also have a weekly email sevice for the more than 200 members.

4. Carlo is not on the editorial board now. He was, but he resigned last year due to his many other duties. You may ask the board members by yourself.

BTW, if your withdraw your paper in the currecnt phase. you stilll need to pay the APC, since we have processed your paper. Certainly, if you don't pay, we can do nothing. But then I will need to pay the fee by myself for the person who edited the paper.
Shan Gao

 

[wrobel]

Who knows about Open Physics journal? I published a paper there several years ago (https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/phys/15/1/article-p671.xml) This is an open access journal and they sent me positive report on my paper and reminded that I must pay the publication. I refused and they published all the same

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

1) See 3.

2) What else did you expect an editor to say about his journal?

3) So really they do not review the paper. In that sense it is moot whether their own “preprint server” or whatever is not the journal, and it also doesn’t matter how many famous scientists they, legitimately or not, claim to be members of the editorial board.

4) See 3.

But you already know what the opinion of everyone here was anyway, so I am not really sure what you are after. Finally someone spotting this thread who gives you an opinion you like better?

 

[sysprog]

BTW, if your withdraw your paper in the currecnt phase. you stilll need to pay the APC, since we have processed your paper. Certainly, if you don't pay, we can do nothing. But then I will need to pay the fee by myself for the person who edited the paper.

(emphasis added)

How about if you don't pay, he doesn't publish?

I'm always wary when a person says to me "you need to", when what he can plausibly sustain is, apparently, only that he wants me to.

Please note that he did not say that you have made any agreement to pay.

Moreover, he is saying that he has to pay a "person who edited the paper"; however, it does not appear to be the case that you have been the recipient of any substantial work product.

It looks unprofessional to me.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why are so you hell bent in publishing in what appears to be The Shady Journal of Unmitigated Crap?

 

[EternalStudent]

But you already know what the opinion of everyone here was anyway, so I am not really sure what you are after. Finally someone spotting this thread who gives you an opinion you like better?

Its not like I want to seek reassurance so that I can submit it; rather, I seek reassurance *either* to submit it *or* not to. As it is, I got reassurance not to. If I were one on one with the editor I might have feeled forced to submit it. But now that I see your replies, I am leaning not to submit it, without feeling as much guilt about it as I would have felt otherwise. But notice I used the word "leaning", so I haven't made a final decision yet. Thats why I am still talking to you.

The next question is what to do with his statement that I would have to pay even if I refuse to publish it. Is it true that he will be paying his referee or is it a lie? One reason to think its a lie is that I, myself, has been referee for "Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity" and they didn't pay me. But can I be *certain* that's a lie or is there some risk of it being the truth? Because you see, if that's the truth, then I will be ruining my relationship with scientific community. Because if you google Shan Gao, he *is* a professor somewhere, and the email adress listed is the same one I been writing to, so I know he is real. Then, of course, *if* it happens that some of the people on his editorial board are real as well, this would make it even worse.

Why are so you hell bent in publishing in what appears to be The Shady Journal of Unmitigated Crap?

If you re-read my posts, you will see that I wasn't saying I wanted to publish it. I was saying I was uncertain. Maybe the miscommunication came at the point where I was "refutting" other people's reasons not to publish it. Well, if someone were to come along and tell me to publish it, I would be "refutting" their reasons too. I have my doubts in both directions, and I sm trying to express my doubts so that people on this board can clarify things further.

In any case, I have responded to the editor. Here is what I wrote:

Dear Professor Shan,

Regarding point 2, even if I can cite your journal on my CV, the question is: will citing it help me get a job? Because from what other people were telling me, the jobs are looking for people that publish in journals with proper peer review process. It is always possible, however, that there are some unconventional jobs that I haven't heard of. So can you let me know what kinds of jobs do the people in your community have and did the publications in your journal in any way helped them get those jobs?

Regarding point 3, I can see where you are coming from, since I have great difficulty getting my own papers published largely because they are unconventional (I have 30 papers in the arXiv, only 4 of which has been published so far). However, speaking of those 4 papers, I was finally able to get them onto journals with the proper peer review process, despite the fact that it took me several years to do so. I hope to be able to do the same thing with the paper I sent you (when I was sending it to you I was, mistakenly, thinking that your journal has proper peer review process which you admitted it does not).

Regarding the payment, I am surprised you are saying you will have to pay the referee. I have, personally, been asked to review three different papers for "Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity" and I never got paid for reviewing them. By your own admission (see point 3) the referees for your journal do a lot less work than the referees for conventional journals. So why would you have to pay your referees if the conventional journals don't pay theirs?

Thank you

 

[ZapperZ]

Because you see, if that's the truth, then I will be ruining my relationship with scientific community.

Now that's priceless, considering that you didn't mind one bit not paying for any publication fees and pushing its cost onto others.

Zz.

 

[EternalStudent]

Now that's priceless, considering that you didn't mind one bit not paying for any publication fees and pushing its cost onto others.

Zz.

Thats because I didn't know these costs existed on the first place.

Here is the proof that I didn't know. If I actually knew, why was I looking at the cost as one of the evidence that the journal is fake? And besides, what would be the purpose of bringing it up anyway if I knew I was the one doing something wrong?

 

[EternalStudent]

Here is the subsequent correspondence that happened just now:

HIM: OK, I will pay the fee for the person who helped to edit your paper (NOT the referee).

ME: The word "edit" means "make changes". Are you saying that someone made changes on my paper? Can you give me some examples of the changes they make? By the way, referees don't edit the papers, but they are sending me the list of changes they want "me" to make.

HIM: I meant typesetting your paper to the journal format.

So, based off of this, can you guys tell me if that's the truth or not? I mean, I remember few years ago I was writing a proceedings paper for one of the talks I gave, and they asked me to convert it to journal format myself -- and it took me the whole day to figure out how to do it (which involved asking other people for help). But, at the same time, I am really bad with computers. So its possible that other people that are better with computers than I am might be able to do it within few minutes -- I simply don't know.

The reason this question is important is that I want to figure out whether its plausible that converting it to the journal format would cost 300 dollars. If it is a lot of work then yes, if it is very little work, then probably not. What do you think?

 

[atyy]

https://journals.aps.org/prx/authors/submissionguide-prx
Physical Review X is an open-access journal that is financed by article-processing charges to the authors of published papers or to their institutions. The articles are published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (3.0 Unported or 4.0 International). Before making submissions authors must take steps to ensure that they or their institutions accept the responsibility for the payment of an Article Processing Charge ($2900 for up to roughly 20 formatted pages) should their manuscripts be accepted for publication.

https://www.nature.com/ncomms/about/article-processing-charges
Nature Communications is an open access journal. To publish in Nature Communications, authors are required to pay an article processing charge (APC).
The APC for all published papers is as follows, plus VAT or local taxes where applicable:
£3,790 (UK)
$5,380 (The Americas, China and Japan)
€4,380 (Europe and rest of world)

 

[CrysPhys]

Thats because I didn't know these costs existed on the first place.

Here is the proof that I didn't know. If I actually knew, why was I looking at the cost as one of the evidence that the journal is fake? And besides, what would be the purpose of bringing it up anyway if I knew I was the one doing something wrong?

I just looked at the IJQF website. If you click on the "Submit" tab (https://www.ijqf.org/submit), you get these instructions:

"If you are a IJQF member, you may log in and post your paper as a PDF attachment in the Blogs. You may also write something relevant to your paper in your post.

If you are not a IJQF member, you may send us an email with cover letter and paper attachment in PDF format.

Premier members of IJQF can publish papers in the journal for free. For other authors of accepted papers, paying article processing charge is mandatory. The charge is $600 USD for authors with access to grant funding and $300 USD for authors without grant funding."

<<Emphasis added>>

Before this, I never heard of this journal. If I could find their publication fees so easily, then it wasn't hidden (either intentionally or through poor website management or whatever). Can't see how you missed it.

 

[EternalStudent]

I just looked at the IJQF website. If you click on the "Submit" tab (https://www.ijqf.org/submit), you get these instructions:

"If you are a IJQF member, you may log in and post your paper as a PDF attachment in the Blogs. You may also write something relevant to your paper in your post.

If you are not a IJQF member, you may send us an email with cover letter and paper attachment in PDF format.

Premier members of IJQF can publish papers in the journal for free. For other authors of accepted papers, paying article processing charge is mandatory. The charge is $600 USD for authors with access to grant funding and $300 USD for authors without grant funding."

<<Emphasis added>>

Before this, I never heard of this journal. If I could find their publication fees so easily, then it wasn't hidden (either intentionally or through poor website management or whatever). Can't see how you missed it.

He was confronting me about the fact that I didn't pay the journals where I published in the past so that's what my statement "I didn't know" was referring to. The summary of the relevant conversation is as follows:

ME: If I decide not to publish on IJQF, should I still pay the cost of the work they already done? This is really an ethical issue.

Zapper: It is ironic that you are concerned about the ethical issue with IJQF if you weren't concerned about being unethical with the other four jounals where you didn't pay for your publications

ME: With the other four journals I simply didn't know

As you see, the "I didn't know" refers to the other 4 journals -- and IJQF was *not* one of them.

Now, as far as IJQF is concerned, I also didn't know at first because I didn't read that carefully enough. But -- after I became suspicious when I didn't get the referee report -- I decided to read their website more carefully and that's when I saw it. I saw it on their website a week ago, and they mentioned it to me the day before yeasterday, so clearly I saw it before they mentioned it to me which confirms the fact that its easy to see. Yet I didn't see it a month ago -- which is when I should have looked since that's when I was sending them the paper. But, due to my own sloppiness, I only saw it a week ago.

That, however, is not what I was referring to in my reply to Zapper. In my reply to Zapper I was referring to not knowing the costs of the other 4 journals. And that is something I found out strictly from him.

On a separate point I am still asking whether I should pay the IJQF seeing that I chose not to publish it. But that is another, separate topic. They say the answer is yes, but I am not sure if I can trust them seeing that they are shady. And their website doesn't cover the issue of what happens if you withdraw your paper before its published.

 

[Cthugha]

Don't believe me. Read the page I gave you from the APS webpage. I'm not making this up. And I have published in PRL, PRB, and PRAB, and we paid the publication costs for each one of them. These are FACTS that happened.

You may not have paid a cent, but it doesn't mean the publication costs didn't exist. You chose to ignore it.

Just for the record: PRL, and PRA to PRE do not charge any publication costs unless the article is supposed to be open access, needs heavy editing or people request to have figures printed in color. From the APS webpage: " The hybrid journals – including PRL, PRA, PRB, PRC, PRD, PRE, PRApplied, PRFluids, and PRMaterials – allow authors to publish at no cost under the traditional subscription model, and also provide authors the option to publish an accepted article open access under a CC-BY 4.0 International license, upon the payment of an APC. "

In my recent experience PRA and PRB strictly offer free publication. PRL has started asking for voluntary publication charges a while ago. For PRC to PRE I have no personal experience, but would expect than things are similar to PRA and PRB. I chose to pay the voluntary page charges for PRL a while ago at the beginning of 2019 for one article and got heavily criticized by the funding agency funding the project to spend taxpayer money on non-mandatory charges. The opinion of the funding agency was that PRL offers a subscription model and double-paying (for the subscription and for publishing) should not be encouraged. I understand the issues of non-profit publishers and we still publish most of our stuff with the APS, but APCs for hybrid journals are a non-trivial topic from several points of view. APCs for "true" open access journals such as PRX are of course a different thing.

 

[Ahmed Mehedi]

One obvious disadvantage of Open Access Journals is that you have to pay for it. However, paying would have been worth it if it were to give me something I can cite on my CV. And this brings me to the following question: would citing open access journals on my CV help me at all? In particular, I am thinking about the following two journals:

1. International Journal of Quantum Foundations
2. Universe, ISSN 2218-1997, IF 2.165

Please let me know what you think about those.

You may check Scimago journal ranking to judge the quality of a journal quite easily and to some extent comprehensively.

1. International journal of quantum foundation is not listed in Scimago which is a negative.

2. For the journal 'Universe' it is listed in Scimago. It has an impact factor of around 2.00 which is good. Its H-index is 16 which means it has published at least 16 papers each of which is cited at least 16 times so far. H index of Universe is not so good. Its SJR score is 0.72 which placed it in the second quartile. Moreover, nearly 40% of all the papers published so far in 'Universe' are yet to receive any citation. In short it is a mediocre peer reviewed academic journal and you can go for it . Find out more at the link: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100903488&tip=sid&clean=0

 

[mathwonk]

My 2 cents: this seems such an obvious scam that I am puzzled the discussion continues.