Graham Kendall

JOAIPS URL: buff.ly/U2TA8T8 (archived at buff.ly/QUqGHw0)
Publisher URL: buff.ly/RPVpDft (archived at buff.ly/hJplCw0)

The return email address is "jplasc@...." but the journal short name is joaips. Perhaps there is not an issue here, but it just seems a little strange. Happy if somebody can explain to me the rationale.

I received this email from the Journal of Advances in Plant Sciences (ISSN: 3068-4064), which is published by Directive Publishing.
🧵

JOAIPS URL: buff.ly/U2TA8T8 (archived at buff.ly/QUqGHw0)
JOAT URL: buff.ly/fMHCq8J (archived at buff.ly/Tej0meH)
Publisher URL: buff.ly/RPVpDft (archived at buff.ly/hJplCw0)

They are writing from the Journal of Advances in Plant Sciences (JOAIPS), but asking me to submit to Journal of Advanced Therapeutics (JOAT), which they say is ISSN 3068-4064 (which is the ISSN of JOAIPS), but it is actually 3068-367X.

I received this email from the Journal of Advances in Plant Sciences (ISSN: 3068-4064), which is published by Directive Publishing.

They may have a copy/paste error.
🧵

Given this, the data has been collected and stored as an Excel file and is available at: buff.ly/TkxJ35v

Editors
This is a link to the editorial page: buff.ly/Jh54ajN (archived at buff.ly/CAeRnIE). Due to the way the page is structured, this is not totally reliable, in that the pagination does not work on the archived page.

Perhaps I am missing something?

Journal URL: buff.ly/BOtGpog (archived at buff.ly/llYWR5M)

Looking at the Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research (ISSN: 2574-1241).

On their home page, the journal says that it has 2,000+ editors. I have looked at the editors page and it shows 236 members of the editorial committee and seven associate editors.
🧵

Of course, the Fengkai Group may be an innocent party to this, so would welcome their comments/views. Their web site is here: buff.ly/jROklMJ.

Note: I have respected the privacy of the person who sent me this, but thank you.

I would be very interested to hear people's view, whether you have had any experience of the Fengkai Group or whether you know anybody who has used their services (privately, DM is fine).

3️⃣ Perhaps most shocking (to me), Party B (the Professor supplying the paper) **MAY** be invited to be an author on the paper. I still can't quite believe this.

4️⃣ As would be expected all parties are bound to keep everything confidential

2️⃣ Party B (the Professor), will receive a payment, depending on where the manuscript gets accepted (essentially based on the @Scopus / @Clarivate quartile.

The full agreement (it is only two pages) has been archived here: buff.ly/WvLBQQJ, but the key points I would like to draw out are.

1️⃣ Party B (the Professor) will supply completed manuscripts.

Essentially, the agreement says that the Professor will supply manuscript(s) for which they will be paid (one the article is published). The manuscript will be submitted on behalf of their client.

I received a copy of an Academic Cooperation Agreement between Fengkai Group Co., Ltd. and a Professor.
🧵

Future issues will look at Governance, Leadership and Resaerch.

Please take a look at the first issue, available at buff.ly/jeIm5Se.

Please consider subscribing.

Today I’m launching a new weekly (LinkedIn) newsletter: Governance & Research in Higher Education.

It will examine how governance systems and research practice shape one another.

The first issue explores why strategy and scholarship must be aligned.
🧵

Looking at the Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research (ISSN: 2574-1241).

Not really sure what a modern issue is. Anybody?

Journal URL: buff.ly/BOtGpog (archived at buff.ly/llYWR5M)

Journal URL: buff.ly/BOtGpog (archived at buff.ly/llYWR5M)
Author Guidelines: buff.ly/pzUalSq (archived at buff.ly/q3z8TNR)

Looking at the Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research (ISSN: 2574-1241).

Thought we'd record the processing fees (article processing charges by any other name), as well as the subscription fees.
🧵

Notes:
The Youtube video (buff.ly/Bllldt9) was run by Prophy. It looked at what challenges we may face in the next 2-5 years.

Data used for governance, strategy and research should not require additional processing, when it already exists.
What has your experience been when working with affiliation data?

If identifiers exist in a given database, they should be accessible, not only via APIs (which I think they are in the Scopus API), in standard exports used by researchers and institutions.

⚫️ Strategic decision-making

⚫️ Research projects, such as bibliometrics

In a recent webinar, I briefly raised this point (watch from 52:26 to 52:40):
buff.ly/Bllldt9

If structured affiliation IDs exist in the system, why are they not routinely available in standard exports?

This is not a technical inconvenience.

It affects:
⚫️ University benchmarking

⚫️ Collaboration mapping

⚫️ Funding analysis

⚫️ Abbreviations and spelling variations multiply

⚫️ Institutional analysis becomes fragile

Compare this with the author ID. This is available, so that you can be sure that an author sharing the same ID is the same person. A given author may have more that one ID, but that is a different discussion.

Yet when researchers export results as CSV or Excel files, what do they receive?

Mostly free-text affiliation strings.

That means:
⚫️ The same university appears in multiple formats

⚫️ Departments are mixed with institutions

Why can’t Scopus export affiliation IDs?

Inside the Scopus bibliometric database, institutions are assigned an affiliation identifier.

Those identifiers underpin institutional profiles, analytics and benchmarking.
Importantly, they exist.
🧵