tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.comments2023-07-05T14:50:27.171+02:00Mats WidgrenMats Widgrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021681163483000278noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-50370660521641316462022-02-19T23:09:58.656+01:002022-02-19T23:09:58.656+01:00Tack för ditt inlägg jag har delat vidare på min s...Tack för ditt inlägg jag har delat vidare på min sida o hoppas mina vänner kan dela vidare. Sedan gjorde jag som flera Fiskisbor ville, skrev min kommentar om Fiskis 1995-2009 som jag upplevde skolsituationen i ett mejl till Mats Gerdau, så du och EllenAnn vet. trir han var untbildningsnämndens ordförande under den tiden .<br />Swemanorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11909813567557048180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-69045339445676437872021-04-28T07:59:22.457+02:002021-04-28T07:59:22.457+02:00Open access has a fundamental problem: while in tr...Open access has a fundamental problem: while in traditional publishing, the incentive of the publisher is to publish high quality material so that the journal would be attractive to potential readers that would in turn buy articles, in Open Access, the incentive of the publisher is to accept more articles, since the author pays.<br /><br />There are better and worse Open Access publishers, however, what can be said in general is that in tendency, Open Access has a pressure to lower the quality in favor of higher output. This follows very basic economic mechanisms and it is regardless of the publisher. <br /><br />Stephanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04879517847112634916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-21807325725654001202021-04-28T07:49:47.899+02:002021-04-28T07:49:47.899+02:00I have been co-author on an article submitted to a...I have been co-author on an article submitted to an MDPI journal in 2013 (Future Internet). We received very critical (negative) reviewer comments and also our revision was met with both reviewers voting for reject. <br />However, the editor asked us to cite a number of papers and then the paper could be accepted. <br /><br />This would have been the point for me to withdraw the submission, and I recommended this to the main author. However, publications count towards career planning and so essentially, we followed the recommendation of the editor. <br />The paper was published and this has been the last time that I did anything for or with MDPI. I don't cite, review or write for MDPI. Stephanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04879517847112634916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-17294069839013605012021-04-28T07:49:26.091+02:002021-04-28T07:49:26.091+02:00I have been co-author on an article submitted to a...I have been co-author on an article submitted to an MDPI journal in 2013 (Future Internet). We received very critical (negative) reviewer comments and also our revision was met with both reviewers voting for reject. <br />However, the editor asked us to cite a number of papers and then the paper could be accepted. <br /><br />This would have been the point for me to withdraw the submission, and I recommended this to the main author. However, publications count towards career planning and so essentially, we followed the recommendation of the editor. <br />The paper was published and this has been the last time that I did anything for or with MDPI. I don't cite, review or write for MDPI.Stephanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04879517847112634916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-5717696577306982642021-03-27T19:46:58.810+01:002021-03-27T19:46:58.810+01:00Håller tummarna för att kulturmarken ska bevaras!Håller tummarna för att kulturmarken ska bevaras!ingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17042828837219621745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-3155420297227620882021-03-27T19:46:49.619+01:002021-03-27T19:46:49.619+01:00Håller tummarna för att kulturmarken ska bevaras!Håller tummarna för att kulturmarken ska bevaras!ingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17042828837219621745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-45033561040823028572021-03-25T15:14:31.199+01:002021-03-25T15:14:31.199+01:00Här bör väl tillfogas att denna fråga löstes 2020 ...Här bör väl tillfogas att denna fråga löstes 2020 då högsta domstolen fattade beslut i det numera prejudicerande fallet "Bygglovet i Svartrå" https://www.domstol.se/hogsta-domstolen/avgoranden/2020/56639/<br /><br />Högsta domstolen klargjorde att Varbergs naturskyddsförening hade rätt att överklaga och återvisade ärendet till länsstyrelsen som kort därefter upphävde kommunens beslut om bygglov. Något slott blir det alltså inte, men under mellantiden har markägaren rivit huset som avbildas ovan och inlett schaktningar på tomten.Mats Widgrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11021681163483000278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-5168999799098701842021-03-25T15:10:22.199+01:002021-03-25T15:10:22.199+01:00Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.Mats Widgrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11021681163483000278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-84922644150935222032021-03-17T20:07:03.057+01:002021-03-17T20:07:03.057+01:00Det här är så rättsvidrigt. Det här är så rättsvidrigt. YuSie Rundkvist Chouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13372837129622399578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-83023995125086336822021-02-23T22:28:41.602+01:002021-02-23T22:28:41.602+01:00I want to share my experience with you. I submitte...I want to share my experience with you. I submitted my original and unpublished work to the MDPI Sustainability journal.<br /><br />The paper has been submitted to the journal by me.<br />For no reason, the assistant editor mentioned that there is a conflict of interest and put an unreasonable delay on my paper.<br />After almost two weeks, the paper gone through the review process.<br />The paper has been revised by me two times.<br />One of the reviewers asked to remove a few of the references, which I did.<br />The paper got accepted.<br />The content of the paper has been thoroughly changed by the English Editing Department without my consent.<br />The English Editing Department said that I have to re-add the removed references, which I did.<br />The assistant editor said that she must contact again the reviewer and academic editor for approval of adding the references.<br />After almost 10 days, she came back to me and said that the academic editor mentioned that only one reference should be added, and the reviewer has forced to put his/her papers in the references section, which all were irrelevant to the topic of this paper.<br />I, as the author, have the right to accept or reject references suggested by the reviewer to be included in the paper. I rejected adding the references suggested by the reviewer, which is common practice.<br />The assistant editor suggested withdrawing the paper, which I did.<br />The assistant editor did NOT process the paper withdrawal, and the paper was still with the editorial office for no reason.<br />I had the right to submit a paper that has been withdrawn to the same or different journal. In that case, a new academic editor and reviewers would be assigned to review the paper. I submitted the paper 24 hours after withdrawal.<br />The newly submitted paper has been withdrawn again by the editorial office without providing any reason.<br />I have been waiting for more than a month to get to know about the final decision on my paper which was submitted ~2.5 months ago.<br /><br />I do not need to remind you that the guest editor has no vote/right to force me to add or remove references. But in my case, he/she did that. You can clearly see how unlawful, unethical, and unprofessional acts have been made all by the MDPI team. <br /><br />I checked the Committee on Publication Ethics and it is clearly indicated that as long the author ensures that he/she does not end up excessively self-citing, self-citation would be absolutely ethical. In addition, when the references are 100% relevant, I don't think, I have to be obligated to cite irrelevant papers suggested by the reviewer. Indeed, the number of references is high enough that self-citation can be disregarded. Hence, the ethical line had been followed. I submitted the paper on 2020-12-10 at 22:15:22 p.m., it has been accepted on 6 January 2021 and as of today, Feb. 23, 2021, the situation of my paper is vague and even, the editorial team does not reply to any email.<br /><br />All authors should be very very very careful before submitting papers to this journal. If a journal is not on the list of predatory journals, it does not mean that it is not a predatory one.<br /><br />MDPI Sustainability journal is 100% predatory, there is no doubt. I have asked to withdraw my paper three times and they do not care at all. They have taken my paper hostage because I mentioned that I will surely share my experience with others.<br /><br /><br />I won't submit my garbage papers to the MDPI Sustainability journal because my garbage papers worth more than their entire journal. Indeed, I won't review any paper for them too.S Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15789768200240093503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-61988305155687261742021-02-17T17:10:49.613+01:002021-02-17T17:10:49.613+01:00Today I received a message from the managing edito...Today I received a message from the managing editor of "Sensors" that is substantively identical to Message B. It actually made me google for information about this MDPI journal which is how I detected this blog.<br /><br />Michael Tangermann, Radboud University, NL<br />Michael Tangermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11559634682882801526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-29508246263483611022021-01-09T05:33:31.809+01:002021-01-09T05:33:31.809+01:00Dear colleagues,
I also think that this is an inte...Dear colleagues,<br />I also think that this is an interesting discussion and useful forum to share experiences. I see that there is even a debate about the ranking of the universities here. So I thought it might be useful to write some sentences. I will share my own experience with MDPI, Elsevier, Springer, SAGE, Wiley, IEEE, Taylor and Francis, IOP, PLOS. I will not name any journals, universities or colleagues to protect privacy. I work at a university ranked top 10 in the world. I serve as an associate editor in one of the Springer journals with impact factor. I reviewed more than 200 papers for around 30 journals in the last few years. And published some papers in high impact journals.<br />Quality of the editorial and review processes change in every journal regardless of the publisher. For instance, some of the high ranked Q1 journals published by Elsevier have biased editorial process. As an author, I was asked to add irrelevant papers to my reference list by the reviewers and editors were fine with it. In the end, I had to add these papers in my reference list. As a reviewer, I recommended to reject some papers with harsh comments, but the editors accepted them. I was invited to review a paper by one of the not so good but also not so bad SAGE journals. The second reviewer was either the editor-in-chief of the journal who is a very esteemed person or someone working in his group. The first suggestion by the second reviewer was including 6 papers in the reference list published by the editor-in-chief. The authors were fine with it, and the paper was published. IEEE journals have rigorous peer review processes except Access. My experience with Springer and Wiley journals as reviewer were more or less fair. But as an author, I had biases worked for or against me depending on the editors. So far, I reviewed around 20 papers for 5 different journals in MDPI. My comments were not taken into serious only in one paper. <br />All the rest were rejected or published according to my comments and of course, other reviewers' comments. Some MDPI journals has incredible esteemed colleagues working in the same department with me in their editorial boards. I agree that MDPI sends too many emails, but Frontiers journals also send. They ask 1 week to review, but IEEE Access also asks 1 week. Other publishers ask around 10 or 14 days. As an editor, I ask 14 days to complete the reviews. Every journal aims to reduce the average time between the initial submission and the first decision. Publishers push us to reduce it more and more. There are biases in MDPI review process, but there are also biases in Elsevier, SAGE, IEEE or others. It depends on the people in the editorial board. Is MDPI a predatory publisher? For me it doesn’t seem so, it has some problems like all the other publishers.<br />PS: Please also be aware that the reviewers only recommend the decision, but editors decide on the outcome. So it does not mean that you will reject and the paper will be rejected. <br />Kind regards<br />Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04948736173631074613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-34985882311542370762021-01-04T15:54:32.269+01:002021-01-04T15:54:32.269+01:00Dear Colleagues,
I think it is the responsibility...Dear Colleagues, <br />I think it is the responsibility of Reviewers and Editors to contact the publishing office of a journal with any complaint about the handling of the publishing process of any articles. Remember that Open Access journals all are balancing the 'academia' of objective reviews of articles with the 'business' of publishing fees. But, I assume that, in most cases, non-predatory journals are able to follow guidelines for objective and reliable publishing of articles. If they do not, it is the obligation of the Reviewers and Editors to request explanations for the handling of those articles. I have not had the experience described by dagens cynisim; the 3 MDPI journals that I have reviewed and edited articles for have followed my recommendations, in most cases - in the case of one article, they went ahead and accepted the article, with two other positive reviews, when I had recommended to send it out (again) for minor revision. I counted that as an example of the type of disagreement that happens in the review process - how many cases can anyone count of articles rejected by one journal and accepted by another? Academic publishing is not an exact science. But, non-predatory journals do have guidelines that are followed. There may be some differences in processing of articles by the different MDPI journals.<br />Edward Moore, Prof of Bacteriology, University of GothenburgAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083897749270050713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-16446387891404964012021-01-04T13:11:02.394+01:002021-01-04T13:11:02.394+01:00This is an interesting discussion. I have googled ...This is an interesting discussion. I have googled the MDPI journals "Sustainability" and "Healthcare", since I have reviewed manuscripts for them. Ok, their processes are impressingly quick and with 2-3 reviewers. Still, I have reviewed a manuscript for Healthcare and suggested it to be rejected twice (also the other reviewer suggested reject), and yesterday I recieved it a THIRD revision. I find this process highly problematic, and I have never experienced this with any other journal.dagens cynismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14980283056402297363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-7603363610325694592020-12-13T18:29:04.687+01:002020-12-13T18:29:04.687+01:00Regarding the comments of David who thinks that my...Regarding the comments of David who thinks that my earlier comments on the MDPI publishers are 'contradicting', I do not understand the aggressive response or that my comments contradict - what? I simply offered my experience in working with 3 journals of the MDPI publishers because there were some questions by different researchers about what to expect from the MFPI publishers. I personally do not care if anyone submits or reviews or edits journals for MDPI; my research group has submitted only one article to an MDPI journal. David obviously has an axe to grind against all journals of MDPI because of a bad experience with one of the MDPI journals. I have never received reminders for submitting reviews within 24 hours of agreeing to review an article but I have received reminders to complete an Editor assessment of reviews within 48 hours. They can be, as I indicated, 'pushy'. At that time, I informed the publishing assistant that it was not reasonable to expect a decision in such a short time and that I would submit the assessment as soon as possible. I received a note of apology and they were happy to wait for the Editor assessment. The 3 MDPI journals for which I have reviewed articles request a review within 10 days. In most cases, I have submitted the review within the 10 days but there have been times when I could not complete the review within their requested time. In those cases, I requested more time from the publishing assistant, which was not a problem in most cases; in one case, I submitted the review on day 21. I have found the conduct of the MDPI journals for which I have reviewed and served on the EBs, refreshing, in comparison with several other journals that take 3 months or longer to receive back the first Reviewer's Comments. As for David's comments about the University of Gothenburg being 'much lower' than Chalmers Univ, he seems to suggest that my comments are in question because UG is ranked lower than Chalmers Univ. In fact, according to the ranking of universities in Sweden, UG is ranked number 5, ahead of Chalmers (ranked 7 - 9); however, Chalmers is a technical university, which skews rankings. In any case, the ranking of a university probably has little to do with the individual researchers and their publishing experience. I can only say that with the experience of more than 200 publications in peer-reviewed journals over 30 years, I have not found anything about MDPI to be problematic or suspicious. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09132748349524815401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-44052584929701329272020-12-13T01:11:25.604+01:002020-12-13T01:11:25.604+01:00This comment from Edward Moore is very contradicti...This comment from Edward Moore is very contradicting. He states that "The Publishers do 'push' reviewers and editors to come to decisions - I think the average time for a review of a manuscript submitted to Diagnostics is about 10 days.". I am the editor of AMT and know that you can never ever properly review a paper in less than 10 days. I received a paper for Remote Sensing (MDPI) once and regret it forever. The day after you accept to review a paper, they start sending emails after emails and begging you for the review. So I just wrote one paragraph and telling them due to the short amount of time given by the journal, I wasn't able to properly review the paper and am just writing an overall review. Interestingly, they even did not consider that short paragraph in revising the paper, and the paper was online in less than a week after I sent my reviews. Please don't waste your papers by publishing them in MDPI journals. There are 100 of good journals managed by associations such as AGU, EGU, AMS, QJRMS. Please also note that the University of Gothenburg is different and much lower than Chalmers University, so do not be confused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-35366954769320909152020-12-13T01:10:22.226+01:002020-12-13T01:10:22.226+01:00This comment from Edward Moore is very contradicti...This comment from Edward Moore is very contradicting. He states that "The Publishers do 'push' reviewers and editors to come to decisions - I think the average time for a review of a manuscript submitted to Diagnostics is about 10 days.". I am the editor of AMT and know that you can never ever properly review a paper in less than 10 days. I received a paper for Remote Sensing (MDPI) once and regret it forever. The day after you accept to review a paper, they start sending emails after emails and begging you for the review. So I just wrote one paragraph and telling them due to the short amount of time given by the journal, I wasn't able to properly review the paper and am just writing an overall review. Interestingly, they even did not consider that short paragraph in revising the paper, and the paper was online in less than a week after I sent my reviews. Please don't waste your papers by publishing them in MDPI journals. There are 100 of good journals managed by associations such as AGU, EGU, AMS, QJRMS. Please also note that the University of Gothenburg is different and much lower than Chalmers University, so do not be confused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-18597152488667196692020-12-10T16:32:01.694+01:002020-12-10T16:32:01.694+01:00My personal experience with MDPI journals (Entropy...My personal experience with MDPI journals (Entropy, Water, Geosciences) as reviewer, associate guest editor and author is quite similar to Edward Moore's. If you are interested in more details, please see my reply to a question/discussion on ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-to-deal-with-Potentially-Predatory-Open-Access-Journals-and-Publishers-the-case-of-MDPIs-Sustainability-journal).<br /><br />I wish to stress that this post reflects my personal opinion and should not be construed to be NGI's stance in this matter.<br /><br />Dieter Issler<br />Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI)<br />Oslo, NorwayDieter Isslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501713557417102903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-27603312542189698112020-11-11T06:57:12.795+01:002020-11-11T06:57:12.795+01:00Thank you Edward for your informative contribution...Thank you Edward for your informative contribution. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17752042401617287195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-4002065753909942372020-10-05T09:16:10.412+02:002020-10-05T09:16:10.412+02:00This interesting comment came from Edward Moore in...This interesting comment came from Edward Moore in Gothenburg - I made some mistake in the handling so it was not published immedeiately. Here it comes<br /><br /><br />Hej Mats,<br />I was asked to review some articles for the MDPI journal, Diagnostics, about 2 years ago. The review process went smoothly and I was impressed at the speed the journal took from submission, to Editor consideration to send out for review, review by 2 or 3 reviewers, the response of the authors and subsequent re-review process to decision. The whole process time was about one month. Later, they contacted me to join the Diagnostics Editorial Board - that was in January 2019. Since then, I have been contacted about once or twice every 3 months to assess whether an article should go out for review. The Publishers never sent articles for review if I had indicated that they should not go for review. The Publishers responded to my suggestions in cases of 'conflicting' reviews and have contacted me for assessing articles with 'conflicting' reviews. When I receive a manuscript for consideration to send out for review, it comes with a list of reviewers, selected by the Publishers and also at least 3 suggested by the authors of the manuscript. The Publishers ask the Editor to assess the compentence of the listed reviewers - so, the Editor has the opportunity to reject any reviewers that do not have the expertise or that appear to be 'friends' of the authors. Editors may also suggerst reviewers for the submitted manuscript. The Publishers do 'push' reviewers and editors to come to decisions - I think the average time for a review of a manuscript submitted to Diagnostics is about 10 days.<br />MDPI does seem to push the special topics issues - I guess the Special Issues are a money-maker for them. At the time that I joined the EB of Diagnostics, they solicited a topic from me for a Special Issue; I have not yet proposed a topic for that journal. This year, I joined the EB of another MDPI journal, Microorganisms. The experience with the Publishers of that journal has been much the same and I am acting as Co-Editor for a Special Issue for that journal - to be published next year. Before I proposed a special topic, I contacted another Editor that had edited a Special Issue; she told me that the process had gone smoothly and she had been supported by the Publishers. So far, in the case of my Special Issue, the Publishers have been efficient in organising everything. <br />So, I wss at first a bit suspicious about MDPI journals but all of my experience has been more or less the same as with other journals for which I have reviewed or served as Editor. The only significant difference that I have noticed has been - to my experience of 30 years publishing peer-review articles - the remarkable speed with which they are able to process their publications. I hope this 'review' helps people to consider MDPI journals.<br />Edward Moore, Prof of Bacteriology, University of GothenburgMats Widgrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11021681163483000278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-3567029019901198432020-04-16T14:36:32.988+02:002020-04-16T14:36:32.988+02:00I just received from Water a message that is (subs...I just received from Water a message that is (substantively) identical to B Message.<br />Daniel Schiffman <br />Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11468799119790823555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-3093340651339059252020-04-16T14:36:30.642+02:002020-04-16T14:36:30.642+02:00I just received from Water a message that is (subs...I just received from Water a message that is (substantively) identical to B Message.<br />Daniel Schiffman <br />Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11468799119790823555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-60998163422334911842020-04-06T10:21:29.782+02:002020-04-06T10:21:29.782+02:00Dear Cavall,
I have no specific knowledge of the M...Dear Cavall,<br />I have no specific knowledge of the MDPI journal Water and cannot give advice. In my blog post I only wanted to give some evidence concerning what I deemed bad behaviour from two MDPI journals. Since I wrote this blog post some other views on MDPI has also been published <br /><br />https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/<br /><br />Dan Brockington is a colleague I respect so I think his documentation and views are worth considering.<br /><br />Moreover, when I wrote this post the Norwegian index did not mention individueal journals for 2019 only the publishing house. That has changed now as you can see from previous comments. The Norwegian Index now mentions Water as OK but of course not among the top journals in the field as Water Research.<br /><br />https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalTidsskriftInfo.action?id=476788&bibsys=false&request_locale=en <br /><br />I suggest you look at the editorial board. Do the members there belong to the top researchers in the field? I am not able to judge.<br />MatsMats Widgrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11021681163483000278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-34248998752237381532020-04-06T10:12:29.754+02:002020-04-06T10:12:29.754+02:00Hi Mats
so please advise is Water a predatory jour...Hi Mats<br />so please advise is Water a predatory journal. HAve limited resources to check at the moment given the global situation and work from home is not the norm for me. Ive been given this query to check on behalf of a lecturer who wants to publish.<br />Thanks<br />Cavall<br />CPUTLIBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13537553070606019728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7316856351736646759.post-5249566413514591162020-04-06T10:07:27.265+02:002020-04-06T10:07:27.265+02:00Hi Mats
so please advise is Water a predatory jour...Hi Mats<br />so please advise is Water a predatory journal. HAve limited resources to check at the moment given the global situation and work from home is not the norm for me. Ive been given this query to check on behalf of a lecturer who wants to publish.<br />Thanks<br />Cavall<br />CPUTLIBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13537553070606019728noreply@blogger.com