: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
Sally, I don't wish to belabour the point, but I also don't
want it to be missed. I appear to have been too oblique in my
original comment, which may have obscured its relevance to you
as well as to others on this listserv. What I meant to address
was
o: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: [CLS Junk released by User action] Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine published by Excerpta
Medica was published at least from 2002 to 2005. There are holdings of the
journal at the
-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Uhlir, Paul
Sent: 19 May 2009 06:43
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
Sally, I don't wish to belabour the point, but I also don't want it
to be missed. I appear to ha
i.org
Subject: Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine published by
Excerpta Medica was published at least from 2002 to 2005. There are
holdings of the journal at the State Library of New South Wales:,
Vol. 1, issue 2 (2002)-v. 4, issue 1 (2005). El
ss-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:42 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
My understanding - which may be wrong - was that Elsevier did NOT
"launch n
[ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Dear Paul,
That a publisher, claiming to be a reputable publisher of respected
and respectable scientific journa
cientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Uhlir, Paul
Sent: 19 May 2009 06:43
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
Sally, I don't wish to belabour the point, but I also don't want it
to b
Sally, I don't wish to belabour the point, but I also don't want it
to be missed. I appear to have been too oblique in my original
comment, which may have obscured its relevance to you as well as to
others on this listserv. What I meant to address was your assertion
that you think it is "a fallacy
