Jinhai Gao says:
February 20, 2014 at 11:08 AM
Jeff，
You said “Criminals can testify against other criminals (metaphorically speaking)”. However, you need to take what criminals said with a fat grain of salt (metaphorically speaking).
A case in point here: the bakery the red arrow points to in the second picture above is NOT the Basel headquarter of MDPI. Rather the MDPI headquarter is in the next building. See this actual picture for yourself (building 64): http://s2.t.itc.cn/mblog/pic/20142_20_20/a5o3ng53791950713688.jpg. Yiming fooled you.
Everybody is familiar with the phrase that you can’t judge a book by its cover. Why did you even make a big deal about how MDPI headquarter look like? Should publishers all have fancy buildings like banks? For a comparison, here is what the Nature headquarter looks like on Google street view: http://s2.t.itc.cn/mblog/pic/20142_20_18/a9okkj43604894336688.jpg.
I think you should at least take down that bogus picture. In my opinion, you have done a really sloppy job this time. I have been a long time follower of your site. To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement.
Reply
Jeffrey Beall says:
February 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM
Dear Jinhai: You seem very happy with MDPI, and that’s fine. You are free to like it, and I am free to classify it as questionable. Because you seem to like it so much, I encourage you to publish your research in MDPI’s journals. When you do this, I am sure you will get the academic credit you deserve. –Jeffrey Beall
Reply
Jinhai Gao says:
February 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM
Jeff, I don’t know how you came up with your conclusion that I am happy with MDPI. I have never published or reviewed a paper in its journals, not on any of its editorial boards. I am not defending MDPI per se. My problem lies with your analysis. In the past I simply accepted your judgment on its face value. However, this time I did look into your analysis in more detail and found it highly problematic. I am here to simply point out these problems.
In my earlier post I pointed out that the picture is incorrect in pointing to a bakery as the publisher’s headquarter. In fact yiming (Xin Ge) corroborated my account by posting the address of MDPI as Klybeckstrasse 64, which is clearly the building next to the red arrow (see the above link. Here is another view: http://s3.t.itc.cn/mblog/pic/20142_20_20/b5hvu953708761605816.jpg). Frankly I am astonished that you ignored my post and continued to show the wrong picture. Of course you are free to classify MDPI as questionable, but you must first get your facts straight. To me this is a credibility issue. The influence of Beall’s list depends on your credibility. I’m not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that by knowingly refusing to correct factual errors, you are exposing yourself to potential liabilities.
Here are my two cents about your sarcastic suggestion on submitting papers to MDPI’s journals. My field is molecular biology. People in this field usually try the best journal you think your paper could be accepted, and if unsuccessful, go down the ladder until you find a journal that accepts your paper. Fortunately I have had no need to publish a paper in a lower tier journal. However, not all papers can get into top tier journals. Lower tier journals exist for a reason. Many problems noted for MDPI journals are not specific for open access journals. There are plenty of traditional journals that publish low quality papers. I have served as a reviewer for some of the lower tier, traditional journals. There is no doubt that standards for these journals are much lower than higher tier journals. I can easily complain about them like people complaining about MDPI journals here. For example, I have noted a dozen pseudoscience papers from a couple of labs published in traditional journals with IF of ~3, which report the effects of a Qigong master’s ability to manipulate the biology of cells.
The bottom line is, when your paper appears in a lower tier journal it doesn’t carry much weight anyways, especially in a US academic institution. There is little difference between publishing it in a MDPI journal versus publishing it in a traditional low quality journal, which by the way is not free either. However, an initially lower tier journal can improve its quality over time if the editorial board is serious. What you are doing to MDPI is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By putting them into your list, you are making it harder for those journals with ambitions to climb the publication ladder to achieve their goals.
Jeffrey Beall says:
February 21, 2014 at 1:53 PM
Have you ever published a scholarly paper anywhere? Who are you? I think you were smart not to ever publish in an MDPI journal, and your actions are very telling.
Jinhai Gao says:
February 21, 2014 at 3:31 PM
Why did you sidestep my criticism? Who I am is not important. It is the substance of my criticism that is important. What I can tell you here is that I am a faculty member in an academic institution in the US. If you really want to know my identity and swear not to disclose it to anyone else (because I don’t want to be harassed by guys like yiming). I can let you know by email.
Let me air more complaints about your analysis. First of all, the title of your article is not even correct. MDPI is not a Chinese publisher. Lin Shukun is a Swiss citizen and the company headquarter is located in Basel, Switzerland. Many Silicon Valley companies are founded by Indian immigrants, and many of these companies outsource their operations to India. Would you call these companies Indian companies? KFC is now doing most of its business in China, would you call KFC a Chinese company? The term “made in China” is associated with poor quality and elicits raw emotions in some people’s mind. I suspect that your action of classifying MDPI as a predatory publisher may have some to do with your realization that its founder is a Chinese immigrant.
Your analysis is choke full of speculations with little evidence to back them up. Here are some more examples:
1) Peter Suber serving on an editorial board is an effort to forestall criticism. Evidence? None. It was just your hunch.
2) Because its mission is to earn as much money as possible through article submissions. Where did you find this mission of the company, out of thing air? Let me borrow your tactic, see how you like it: because Jeffery Beall’s mission is to gain as much fame or notoriety as possible through Beall’s list, he went after MDPI…
3) The publisher was mainly set up to exploit the needs of scholars in China. Evidence? Because yiming said so? The Beijing office was set up in 2008, but if you care enough to look through MDPI’s recent publications, you’ll find that only a small percentage of papers is actually from authors within China.
Jeffrey Beall says:
February 21, 2014 at 3:40 PM
Is Jinhai Gao your real name, or are you writing under a pseudonym? Have you published any papers with MDPI? I just searched your name on the MDPI site and found nothing. (Perhaps you use only an initial?) Please answer my question: have you published any papers with MDPI?
Jinhai Gao says:
February 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM
I have already answered this question above: “I have never published or reviewed a paper in its journals, not on any of its editorial boards.” Looks like you didn’t quite read my comments. Let me add more information: I have published plenty of papers. I have no relationship with MDPI. I do not know Lin in person. My interest in this case comes from 1) I have been a long-time follower of your list; 2) I am familiar with the Fang Shimin and Yiming’s work.
Of course I use Jinhai Gao as my pseudonym, for the reason I explained in my previous response.
Jeffrey Beall says:
February 21, 2014 at 4:16 PM
Okay, so you are using a fake name. What other false things have you said?
I stand by this: the fact that you have never published in MDPI’s journals is very telling.
I understand Lin is calling in favors and asking his friends to defend his business, and I commend you on your loyalty.
It appears that all the scholars who are defending Lin have never published in any of his journals. Those closest to him, his friends that are defending him, don’t want to publish their work in his journals.