Poorly Written Spam from Predatory Journal

This spam solicitation in today’s email was so poorly written that I could not resist sharing it with readers of NursingWriting.com

Nxxx Pxxx and Cxxx journal asking you to send manuscript to publish under a single roof with Pxxx. You are free to gain the below features:

Express review process

Get processing confirmation (accept or reject by quality team) from Editorial Office within 24-48 hours when the time of submission

Review process within 3 weeks of time frame.

Article published instantly with Editor final acceptance.

Indexing
Cite Factor, Research Bib, SHERPA/ROMEO, ISI and more….

You can send an article by the reply to this email.

I strongly believe that I could have a submission from you within the deadline: July 15th 2016.

[Memo to Editor: I strongly believe that you could not have a submission from me . . . ever.]

 

 

Warning: Predatory Conference Organizers

If you thought it was difficult to assess whether or not a solicitation to submit a manuscript to an online open-access journal is legitimate, now comes the spawn of predatory journals: predatory conferences. To help us sort out the claims of conference participation solicitations, Jeffrey Beall’s ScholarlyOA web site provides a draft of criteria for identifying predatory conferences, written by James McCrostie, a full-time associate professor and part-time journalist in Japan who has written about such conferences.

https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/06/23/proposed-criteria-for-identifying-predatory-conferences/

Beall’s 2016 List: Predatory Open-Access Publishers

Librarian Jeffrey Beall has posted his updated list of predatory online open-access publishers, now in a new format: http://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/

What Do Authors Want from Peer Review?

Author Services of Taylor & Francis has undertaken a study of researchers’ views and has published Peer Review in 2015: A Global View. Background here: http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review-in-2015/
Topics include: The purpose and benefits of peer review; peer review ethics; the mechanics of peer review; alternative models of peer review.

CFS: Advances in Nursing Science Special Topics Issues

Advances in Nursing Science calls for special topics issues

Our future issue topics:

http://journals.lww.com/advancesinnursingscience/Pages/futuretopics.aspx

39:2 – Women & Girls Manuscript Due Date – October 15, 2015

39:3 – Palliative Care Manuscript Due Date – January 15, 2016

39:4 – Toxic Stress- December 2016 Manuscript Due Date – April 15, 2016

40:1 – ANS Retrospective – March 2017 Manuscript Due Date – July 15, 2016

ANS General Topic Submissions open any time

When Reviewers Disagree (or at least contradict each other)

Karen Kelsky, writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Vitae explores the problem when two or more readers’ reports offer conflicting or contradictory suggestions for revision and resubmission. She advises: 1) You don’t have to accept every revision suggestion (though you need to address all of them); reviewers aren’t necessarily experts in your topic so you can disagree with them; and 3) letting go of ego, you can find revision suggestions helpful. The article is on line for subscribers: https://chroniclevitae.com/news/954-when-the-reviewers-disagree

Writing Academic Book Reviews

Although the journal article manuscript rather than the academic book is the coin of the realm in the academic nursing’s knowledge economy, nurses do write books and books are written for nurses, which means that readers need book reviews, typically in scholarly or professional journals. How do you secure the opportunity to write a book review? How does one structure a book review?

Casey Brienza explains it all to you: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2015/03/27/essay-writing-academic-book-reviews

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 232 other followers