Are open access journals legit for my CV?

[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.

 

[EternalStudent]

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

But then how do you reconcile it with the fact that Journal Universe contacted me regarding my arXiv paper which, according to Dr.AbeNikIanEdL, is a bad sign (see Reply number 17)

 

[Ahmed Mehedi]

But then how do you reconcile it with the fact that Journal Universe contacted me regarding my arXiv paper which, according to Dr.AbeNikIanEdL, is a bad sign (see Reply number 17)

Yes it is usually true that a journal in the second quartile does not generally hunt for papers like this. But, being established in 2015 it has already published some articles that are cited nearly 100 times which is not an easy feat. I have attached a few of its highly cited articles for your review. You may dive into a few of them to judge the quality of some of its best shots.

1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...nsolved+Questions+and+Future+Directions&btnG=

2. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ini+Gravity&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=nF3ZWdLJth0J

3. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...+and+Partially+Massless+Bimetric+Theory&btnG=

4. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ennial+Year&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=FvAMave3sPoJ

5. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...R)+Theories&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=tTBTf8tykyAJ

The list is in no way conclusive. They are cited very well and have also received some influential citations. For your pleasure you may go to the google scholar, search out their top shots, look at their citation counts and check from where these citations have come.

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

I am puzzled the discussion continues.

Well, apparently some people are enjoying it :

This is fun!

 

[atyy]

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

IJQF has articles by https://cqiqc.physics.utoronto.ca/bell_prize/Gisin.html and Claus Kiefer, both of whom are serious scientists. Schlosshauer, who is on the editorial board, is the author of a famous review on decoherence.
https://www.ijqf.org/archives/1397
https://www.ijqf.org/archives/5309
https://www.ijqf.org/editorial-board

I think the comment of @DrClaude in post #32 is more to the point, if indeed there are serious errors in an accepted manuscript.

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

My take is, after this statement of an editor:

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) [...] 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.

the journal really looses any credibility. There is no reason to trust an article published in that way any more than one just uploaded to the arxive. I don't really see how names of other scientists being attached to the journal in one or the other way changes anything. If you know that there is no proper review, you are really just trying to get a "published" stamp on your article in the hope to trick someone into thinking that it has been reviewed.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

But then how do you reconcile it with the fact that Journal Universe contacted me regarding my arXiv paper which, according to Dr.AbeNikIanEdL, is a bad sign (see Reply number 17)

The question in the OP is whether a given journal is legit for a CV.

Usually, those reviewing a CV only have the publicly available information on the journal - its publication history, reputation, impact factor, citations, editorial board, etc. They probably would not know if the journal occasionally solicits papers from what has been posted at arXiv.

Another important factor that has been underappreciated in this thread is the differences between different audiences (hiring committees, etc.) reviewing a CV. A hiring committee for a tenure track position at an R1 university is probably going to view it more negatively if an applicant with few publications has a history of publishing in journals of very low reputation. Hiring committees in industry and schools with more of a teaching focus may not even have a hard look at the reputation of the journals on one's CV.

When I served on the faculty of the Air Force Academy, for example, applications for employment and tenure were not often given serious scrutiny regarding journal reputation. The two main questions considered were:

1. Is the journal peer-reviewed?
2. How many times as the article been cited?

This the most widely cited paper on my CV (166 citations) got dinged, because the highly regarded journal in which it was published (Medical Hypotheses) was not peer reviewed at the time.

My co-author and I have no regrets submitting it there, though. It was an appropriate and timely work and submitting it to Medical Hypotheses allowed it to be published in a timely manner and was simply the most appropriate journal in terms of scope.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Dr. Courtney, you seem to be assuming this is a legit journal. The evidence that this is the case is not exactly overwhelming.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Dr. Courtney, you seem to be assuming this is a legit journal. The evidence that this is the case is not exactly overwhelming.

I'm not assuming anything about this specific journal, but rather trying to provide more general advice that may be applied to a broad range of journals. My focus is on the question in the thread title, rather than "Is journal YYY legit?"

I don't see journal quality or reputation as binary - "legit or not", I see it as a continuous scale that will be viewed differently by different parties evaluating CVs. An ample case has been made by others that the specific journal raised by the OP is on the lower end of the scale to many parties.

But over the next decade, the thread title will attract a readership with an interest in how the question applies to different journals. PF and similar forums have many more "lurkers" that glean the info they need from search functions rather than repeating similar questions. My answers above have them in mind, as well as informing the OP how other journals may be viewed by those reading their CV. The question of "How do I pick a journal to submit to?" comes up often, and I don't think it wise to limit the discussion to a single journal here, since the principles are more general.

 

[EternalStudent]

Another important factor that has been underappreciated in this thread is the differences between different audiences (hiring committees, etc.) reviewing a CV. A hiring committee for a tenure track position at an R1 university is probably going to view it more negatively if an applicant with few publications has a history of publishing in journals of very low reputation. Hiring committees in industry and schools with more of a teaching focus may not even have a hard look at the reputation of the journals on one's CV.

Thats a good point. So let me be more specific on where I want to get hired. On the one hand, I want to get hired at the research university but, on the other hand, I know I won't make it to top tear, so I am shooting for lower tears research universities. I am also open to other theoretical research positions outside universities. One example of non-university theoretical research is Perimeter Institute. Another possibility is to do theoretical physics in either math department or philosophy department. And another possibility is applying to third world countries. Basically I want to do theoretical physics but at the same time there is too much competition for me to have a reasonable chance (unless my number of publications drastically improves) so I would like to find a way to bipass that competition if at all possible. So if you have any suggestions please let me know.

My focus is on the question in the thread title, rather than "Is journal YYY legit?"

Actually, in the thread title, I "was" intending to ask "Is journal YYY legit". But, like you said, there is a question on how do you define legit. So I fugured at the moment that my ability to cite it on a CV might be one way to define it. Thats why I phrased the title the way I did.

I don't see journal quality or reputation as binary - "legit or not",

But what about the journals that actually are listed on the "predatory journal list" (this one isn't listed there, but I am just trying to give more extreme example). Do you think these journals are also in a gray area?

An ample case has been made by others that the specific journal raised by the OP is on the lower end of the scale to many parties.

On the lower end of the scale is not as bad as outright illegitimate. Suppose for example we have a journal with a very low impact factor. That journal would be on the lower end of the scale, but it would still be legit. On the other hand, a journal on the predatory journal list is not legit. Hence, publishing something in the former journal is "better" than publishing something on the latter.

One of the biggest things I was asking is which category should I classify that journal by? Is it legitimate journal on the lower end of the scale, or is it a fake journal? Thats what I was trying to ask.

But over the next decade, the thread title will attract a readership with an interest in how the question applies to different journals. PF and similar forums have many more "lurkers" that glean the info they need from search functions rather than repeating similar questions. My answers above have them in mind, as well as informing the OP how other journals may be viewed by those reading their CV. The question of "How do I pick a journal to submit to?" comes up often, and I don't think it wise to limit the discussion to a single journal here, since the principles are more general.

Is there a way for you to split your answer in two parts: one part dealing with that specific journal and the other part with more general advice? Because I do want to know the answer about the specific journal -- even though more general advice will help too.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Basically I want to do theoretical physics but at the same time there is too much competition for me to have a reasonable chance (unless my number of publications drastically improves) so I would like to find a way to bipass that competition if at all possible. So if you have any suggestions please let me know.

Do you want to "do" theoretical physics or do you want to get "PAID" for a job that is mostly doing theoretical physics. If you want to "do" theoretical physics, then get some teaching experience before you graduate, and get a job teaching physics at a teaching focused college. After your first couple of years, you'll have about 10 hours a week during the semesters and 40 hours a week during the summers to "do" theoretical physics.

Getting "PAID" to do theoretical physics is a much taller order that only the very best manage to accomplish. You have not made the kind of impression here on PF that you're a great prospect for that career.

Actually, in the thread title, I "was" intending to ask "Is journal YYY legit". But, like you said, there is a question on how do you define legit. So I fugured at the moment that my ability to cite it on a CV might be one way to define it. Thats why I phrased the title the way I did.

You've gotten ample feedback here that the specific journal in question is not likely to be viewed favorably by those reviewing your CV for positions in theoretical physics.

But what about the journals that actually are listed on the "predatory journal list" (this one isn't listed there, but I am just trying to give more extreme example). Do you think these journals are also in a gray area?

I prefer to think for myself regarding the quality of journals in physics and the other fields in which I have published. I don't need a librarian doing the thinking for me. I learn more from an hour perusing a journal for myself that from simply whether or not a librarian has added it to a list meeting certain criteria. But at the same time, I realize others may give the librarian's list undue weight without more careful consideration of a given journal.

At the same time, many of the journals on that list are complete junk based on the quality of what they've published.

One of the biggest things I was asking is which category should I classify that journal by? Is it legitimate journal on the lower end of the scale, or is it a fake journal? Thats what I was trying to ask.

Is there a way for you to split your answer in two parts: one part dealing with that specific journal and the other part with more general advice? Because I do want to know the answer about the specific journal -- even though more general advice will help too.

You've gotten plenty of good advice from a number of PhD Physicists, and you seem strongly inclined to ignore their advice regarding that specific journal. Therefore, I'm not inclined to make the effort to conduct an independent investigation and add my opinion to the list you seem most likely to ignore. One wonders if you are simply fishing for one opinion that agrees with your predetermined course of action.

 

[EternalStudent]

My take is, after this statement of an editor:
the journal really looses any credibility. There is no reason to trust an article published in that way any more than one just uploaded to the arxive. I don't really see how names of other scientists being attached to the journal in one or the other way changes anything. If you know that there is no proper review, you are really just trying to get a "published" stamp on your article in the hope to trick someone into thinking that it has been reviewed.

Well, if there is a seeming contradiction then it means that we are confused about something which calls for further discussion to see where the confusion is.

As far as my earlier question about editorial board, you already answered it: they could have lied and wrote that Rovelli is on that board when he isn't really there (as evident from the fact that on Rovelli's own page he doesn't list that journal).

But now there is a different question. What about the scientists that actually send their papers there? Are you saying that they aren't really their papers and they didn't really send them there, and the journal just put their names in order to self-promote? Or if, indeed, they did sent their papers there, what would be their motivation to do so?

 

[EternalStudent]

Do you want to "do" theoretical physics or do you want to get "PAID" for a job that is mostly doing theoretical physics. If you want to "do" theoretical physics, then get some teaching experience before you graduate, and get a job teaching physics at a teaching focused college. After your first couple of years, you'll have about 10 hours a week during the semesters and 40 hours a week during the summers to "do" theoretical physics.

Getting "PAID" to do theoretical physics is a much taller order that only the very best manage to accomplish. You have not made the kind of impression here on PF that you're a great prospect for that career.

i want to get paid to do theoretical physics. I agree that so far I wasn't doing well in this regard. But I would like to make whatever changes necessary in the future to increase this possibility.

I prefer to think for myself regarding the quality of journals in physics and the other fields in which I have published. I don't need a librarian doing the thinking for me. I learn more from an hour perusing a journal for myself that from simply whether or not a librarian has added it to a list meeting certain criteria. But at the same time, I realize others may give the librarian's list undue weight without more careful consideration of a given journal.

Since most people don't have time to do a research regarding the journal some random person has published at, what would statistically count is something that is up at the surface easy for all to see -- and that is precisely what the librarian would be looking at.

You've gotten plenty of good advice from a number of PhD Physicists, and you seem strongly inclined to ignore their advice regarding that specific journal. Therefore, I'm not inclined to make the effort to conduct an independent investigation and add my opinion to the list you seem most likely to ignore. One wonders if you are simply fishing for one opinion that agrees with your predetermined course of action.

I didn't ignore that advice. Case in point: the editor of that journal took my correspondence as an indication that I don't want that paper published there. I didn't correct him. Why not? Because of the advice I was given in this thread. If it wasn't for the advice, this paper would have been published by now (I was given 48 hour deadline to approve the proofs and its already been 4 days or so). The reason why this didn't happen is because of the feedback I received.

If I ask further questions this doesn't mean I ignore the feedback.

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

Well, if there is a seeming contradiction then it means that we are confused about something which calls for further discussion to see where the confusion is.

But now there is a different question. What about the scientists that actually send their papers there? [...]

What? I said, with what you have reported so far, it does not matter for my opinion about this journal who is associated with it in whatever way. Where do you see a "seeming contradiction"?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Since most people don't have time to do a research regarding the journal some random person has published at, what would statistically count is something that is up at the surface easy for all to see -- and that is precisely what the librarian would be looking at.

I don't care about the reputation of journals "some random person" has published at. I need a specific reason to care enough to render an informed opinion.

If I'm on a hiring committee or otherwise evaluating a CV, I care about the quality of the person's scientific abilities. I'm going to read a few of their scientific papers and not pay attention to the journals or their reputations. The papers they wrote contain much more valuable information for the decision my evaluation matters for than other papers in the same journals.

The only case where the quality of a journal matters to me is when I'm advising a student whose research I've mentored or advising my co-authors regarding which journal may best fit our needs in publishing. In either case, by this stage, I've acquired enough knowledge in a field to spend an hour or so reading papers from each candidate journal to get an idea of the journal's suitability for the paper in question.

As I explained before, I view these decisions as trade-offs between possible delays in publication if one aims too high (and the paper gets rejected) and possible not optimizing the opportunity to enhance a student's or colleague's career (if one aims too low). Just because I don't care about journal reputation when reviewing applications doesn't mean no one else does. Early in their careers, students and scientists with only a few publications may benefit from publishing in more highly regarded journals, because lots of committee members seldom look beyond journal reputation.

 

[EternalStudent]

What? I said, with what you have reported so far, it does not matter for my opinion about this journal who is associated with it in whatever way. Where do you see a "seeming contradiction"?

Contradiction between these two things:

a) The fact that editor does not do proper peer review indicates that the journal is fake

b) The fact that high profile scientists publish there indicates that it isn't.

 

[EternalStudent]

If I'm on a hiring committee or otherwise evaluating a CV, I care about the quality of the person's scientific abilities. I'm going to read a few of their scientific papers and not pay attention to the journals or their reputations. The papers they wrote contain much more valuable information for the decision my evaluation matters for than other papers in the same journals.

But then why is it considered essential to get a paper published in a journal instead of just leaving it in the arXiv?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

But then why is it considered essential to get a paper published in a journal instead of just leaving it in the arXiv?

Because not everyone thinks like I do when it comes to evaluating a body of work.

As I mentioned above, when it came to faculty hiring and promotion, the Air Force Academy had two main questions for each publication listed:
1. Was it in a peer-reviewed journal?
2. How many times has it been cited?

I've got several papers that have only been published at arXiv, and I've noticed my papers in peer-reviewed journals get a lot more citations. Many authors are reluctant to cite papers that are not in peer-reviewed journals. (I'm not.)

Knowing how academia and the professional world works, I could not in good conscience recommend to students or colleagues they be content having all their published papers only in arXiv.

I have the professional confidence to have a few papers arXiv-only (or other unreviewed places) since I'm in the second half of my career and I have a lot of papers in top-tier journals.

Most students and early career scientists would do well to have at least half their papers in peer-reviewed journals.

 

[EternalStudent]

Because not everyone thinks like I do when it comes to evaluating a body of work.

As I mentioned above, when it came to faculty hiring and promotion, the Air Force Academy had two main questions for each publication listed:
1. Was it in a peer-reviewed journal?
2. How many times has it been cited?

I've got several papers that have only been published at arXiv, and I've noticed my papers in peer-reviewed journals get a lot more citations. Many authors are reluctant to cite papers that are not in peer-reviewed journals. (I'm not.)

Knowing how academia and the professional world works, I could not in good conscience recommend to students or colleagues they be content having all their published papers only in arXiv.

I have the professional confidence to have a few papers arXiv-only (or other unreviewed places) since I'm in the second half of my career and I have a lot of papers in top-tier journals.

Most students and early career scientists would do well to have at least half their papers in peer-reviewed journals.

So then I could phrase my question this way. Consider three papers, all published by someone in the early stage of the career:

Paper A was posted in the arXiv and wasn't published in any journal

Paper B was posted in arXiv and -- in addition to that -- was published in one of the jounrals that is listed in the "predatory journal" list

Paper C was posted in arXiv and -- in addition to that -- was published in IJQF (the one we were talking about in this thread)

From what I gathered, all three would be viewed unfavorably. But would they be viewed "equally unfavorably" or would there be differences between just how unfavorably they are looked at?

And I realize you mentioned that you tend to focus more on the content while others on the committee tend to focus more on the source. So, in this context, I would like to know about the way others in the committe would see it.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

So then I could phrase my question this way. Consider three papers, all published by someone in the early stage of the career:

Paper A was posted in the arXiv and wasn't published in any journal

Paper B was posted in arXiv and -- in addition to that -- was published in one of the jounrals that is listed in the "predatory journal" list

Paper C was posted in arXiv and -- in addition to that -- was published in IJQF (the one we were talking about in this thread)

From what I gathered, all three would be viewed unfavorably. But would they be viewed "equally unfavorably" or would there be differences between just how unfavorably they are looked at?

And I realize you mentioned that you tend to focus more on the content while others on the committee tend to focus more on the source. So, in this context, I would like to know about the way others in the committe would see it.

I could not in good conscience encourage a student or scientist early in their careers to put themselves in any of the above situations you seem to be contemplating.

 

[atyy]

Contradiction between these two things:

a) The fact that editor does not do proper peer review indicates that the journal is fake

b) The fact that high profile scientists publish there indicates that it isn't.

What is considered proper peer review varies from field to field, and from person to person. And one can have inadequate peer review at reputable journals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/