Comments of Support for SJI


To add your comments of support, please send an email to info@scientificjournals.org. We would truly appreciate it. These messages of support will certainly encourage hundreds of other scholars from across the country and from around the world to speak up in favor of justice, fairness, and honesty, and against lies, fear and smear campaigns. 


Dr. Georgie Ann Weatherby, Associate Professor of Sociology & Criminal Justice, Gonzaga University, Washington, weatherb@gonzaga.edu. -- "My initial response to this is that I am more likely than ever before now to publish with SJI.  I do not like these smear campaigns carried out by a few people -- and will hit them head-on.  I am a reviewer for SJI which has exceptionally high standards. I have published one piece with SJI already. If these cowards want to do battle, they came to the right place. The more lies they spin, the worse they will look. If they keep it up, they will go down in the end, not SJI."



Dr. Mark A. Duva, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Humanities and Social Sciences Division Cerritos College, Norwalk, California, mduva@Cerritos.edu. -- "What SJI is doing is truly revolutionary.  Just read the information on the homepage of SJI to see how its innovative approaches benefit the authors and researchers around the world. Any resistance that SJI is receiving is likely due to the fact that other traditional journals are fearing that their subscription rates will go down due to open access journals.  I have peer-reviewed about six articles for SJI some of which were excellent.  Some were horrible and I recommended rejection of them as they did not deserve publication.  I have gone back to check to see whether they were in fact published, and they were not.  This is an example of the integrity of SJI and their dedication to the comments of peer reviewers.  To say that SJI does not engage in peer review is a flat out lie."



Dr. Svein Arne Jessen, Norwegian School of Management, Norway, svein.a.jessen@bi.no.  "You can never stop envious and mean people from misusing opportunities only for their own profit. One may wonder what type of people use such vulgar methods? Perhaps the best way is simply to publish their smear under "Last Smears", together with the support mails you get, making everybody aware of how mean and vulgar some people can be when they have no other methods of being recognized."



Dr. Katherine M. Faull, Professor of German and Humanities, Chair, Department of Foreign Language Programs, Program in Comparative Humanities, Bucknell University, Pennsylvania, faull@bucknell.edu.-- "I know that the publishing industry has a reputation for doing this kind of smear campaign.  They used the same tactics about 15 years ago against the Edwin Mellen Press. Nasty stuff.  But take heart--the press is still running and stronger than ever and I am sure that open access journals will win in the end! You have my support."
 

Dr. Michael A. Persinger, Full Professor of Behavioural Neuroscience, Psychology and Biology, Laurentian University, Ontario, Canada, mpersinger@laurentian.ca. -- "Universal and free access to knowledge has been our only protection against the types of intellectual tyranny that are frequently presented as absolute authority and representation of consensus. Open access journals have the potential to assess a manuscript based upon its accuracy and potential rather than the prestige of the institution and the pen from which it originates. We are emerging into an international community and a global consciousness where versatility and multiple approaches to the dissemination of knowledge, traditional and novel, are essential. SJI and open access journals are the expression of this evolution. I compliment the Co-founder of SJI, for a most appropriate assertiveness."
 

Dr. David G. Yurth, Director of Science & Technology, The Nova Institute of Technology, Utah, davidyurth@novainstituteoftechnology.com. -- "Control of the means of publication and distribution has long remained the primary means by which scientific orthodoxy has been defended. By preventing the publication of innovative ideas, techniques, concepts and models science has arbitrarily stunted the evolution of our understanding about how the universe works and our place in it. The public agenda driving the proscription of publication of novel, sometimes heretical ideas, is that the maintenance of strict control over publication protects the community of scientists from the unwarranted circulation of inaccurate, incomplete or fundamentally flawed ideas. The hidden agenda serves another interest. By maintaining strict, parochial control of the means of publication, those who have achieved ascendancy in one branch of science or another are able to (a) protect their privileged access to research resources, (b) prevent incursions into their academic territory by potential competitors, (c) impose academic, scientific and personal biases on the literature, and (d) impede the rate of obsolescence of their own competence. The ability to innovate, articulate and engage in collegial discourse is the bedrock of Science itself. Instead of defending the status quo, Science is affirmatively obliged to facilitate, encourage, embrace and discuss promising avenues of investigation as they arise. The demonstrated predilection of conventional peer-reviewed journals to suppress the publication of non-conforming, controversial, and genuinely innovative ideas gives rise to the need for a viable alternative. Public source peer-reviewed journals provide an indispensable, relevant, equally valid alternative to the mainstream organs of science. Science as a pursuit cannot remain vibrant and relevant without them. I heartily support them and encourage others to use this means of publication to give others access to the insights that will lift science out of the dark ages."



Dr. Clive Delmonte, Associate Lecturer, Open University, UK, clivedelmonte@yahoo.co.uk  "The traditional process is systematically used by established scientists to frustrate and block significant innovations in science which challenge their professional position, and which might prejudice their access to research grants and further postgrad students. Only minor innovations in science are allowed into print or sometimes major ones which do not challenge the established order. I have published several papers on SJI and I find that the younger scientists and peer reviewers give much better balanced assessments and are much more flexible about the new ideas which they are willing to entertain. SJI fulfils a role which is desperately needed in science publishing, a breath of fresh air in a traditional scientific world where established scientists maintain a stranglehold on what new ideas can be circulated. We all need to get away from the truism that, in the past, "science progresses funeral by funeral."



Dr. Helena Halmari, Professor of English, Sam Houston State University, Texas, eng_shh@shsu.edu  -- "I have recently reviewed an article submitted to SJI, made multiple suggestions to the author about how he/she could improve the article, re-reviewed the article after the author had attempted to revise it, and eventually rejected the article after the third reading because the author had continued to refuse to revise the article according to the suggestions. This is just one example of how the review process may work."

Dr. Greg Shelnutt, Director, Visual Arts, University of North Carolina School of the Arts, shelnuttg@ncarts.edu. -- "I can attest that I have been asked to review numerous submissions.  Sadly, I have never recommended anything I've reviewed for publication.  What can I say, I'm a tough critic: ask my students, and they'll agree with that assessment.  Interestingly enough, I have not been given any negative criticism for this, only thanks for my time, service and, commentary.  And while I can only speak to my fairly limited experience with SJI, I know that I have taken each review very seriously and sought to offer a true critique, with commentary, not simply a "yes" or "no."  It seems that if the point was just to make money or serve as a "vanity" press, SJI would stop sending me items to review: thus far I've not proved to be a "yes man."  However, this has not happened, and I continue to see manuscripts offered to scholars to review."

Dr. Pati Hendrickson, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Tarleton State University, Texas, hendrickson@tarleton.edu.-- "I have nothing but the best to say about SJI.  I have peer reviewed several works sent to me by SJI, and most have been above par.  I have been impressed with the quality of research submitted and have approved a variety of work for publication, albeit with minor revision in many cases.  I will gladly continue to be affiliated with SJI --thank you for the opportunity to review new and vibrant research within my field. Best wishes in your fight against the smear campaign.  If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on me."
 

Dr. Atif Ali, Associate Professor of Pathology and Pediatrics, University of Missouri, Kansas City. Director of Immunohistochemistry, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine,  Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, aahmed@cmh.edu. -- "I strongly support the SJI and its mission.  Open access journals increase and inspire research interest world-wide. These open access journals including SJI are edited by scientists who value the integrity and ethics of medical research. The abundance of submitted manuscripts in excess of what can be published allows for rigorous review process by the editors. I have personally reviewed manuscripts for publications in SJI with the same process and scrutiny that I have reviewed manuscripts for high impact journals and I would not change my publications criteria for SJI or other open access journals.

Dr. Antonio Gragera,  Professor of Modern Languages, Texas State University, Texas, ag20@txstate.edu. -- "Open-access peer-reviewed journals like SJI may hold the future of academic growth in their hands. Unfortunately, the pressures of academia have often translated in research that is no more than pouring old wine in new glasses, at least as far as humanities is concerned. Most journals have become the stronghold of dominant ideologies. Self preservation has made the permeability of new ideas and approaches almost null. Free open discussion has always been the best vehicle to raise awareness among the public. Open access journals may be, as well, the best vehicle against the petty tyranny of dogmatic knowledge."


Gergana Apostolova, Lecturer of Philosophy, English and American Studies, South Western University, Bulgaria, apostolovag@yahoo.com. -- "I have been on SJI Editorial Review Board since its inception.  My record of reviews done for SJI includes 21 articles. I have enjoyed reading both the papers sent to me for reviewing and those, published on the SJI journals. Anyone, who has visited the Web site of SJI would have been able to give evidence of the fast growing range of topics, journals and the number of volunteer reviewers. SJI is not the only Web journal, but it is fast growing and widely supported in being accessible to researchers from various fields of study. To my knowledge, SJI provides a vast forum for publishing and discussion and its very existence sets challenges for the study of the case of science on the Web. At the same time it does not interfere with researchers' mind spaces, nor does it persist like the exhausting host of other media junk."

Dr. Daniel Moríñigo Sotelo, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Valladolid, Spain, morinigo@eis.uva.es. -- "As a reviewer for SJI, I would like to express my sincere support for the honest work of diffusion and publishing carried out by SJI and my deeper rejection of the coward campaign initiated against SJI and other open access journals. You can count on my collaboration as a reviewer for SJI and you have my full support to fight against these cowards."

Dr. L. Sreerama, Professor, Department of Chemistry, St Cloud State University, Minnesota, lsreerama@stcloudstate.edu. -- "I have been reviewing manuscripts for SJI in the area of chemistry and biochemistry for at least 2 years.  I always used the same standards of review that I use for other journals.  I am certain my colleagues that review for SJI do the same.  Accordingly, quality work is being published through open access SJI journals.  SJI provides an opportunity for researchers and educators to publish their work without prejudice and unnecessary drudgery.  SJI has been a source of literature for my own research and availability of information without the requirement of subscription and other conditions is a blessing."

Dr. Mak Esposito, Associate Professor of Management and Behavior, Director of the Master in International Business, Grenoble Graduate School of Business, France,  mark.esposito@grenoble-em.com.  --  "I have been associated with Scientific Journal International for a bit more than a year and my experience has been of utmost high quality. The intellectual productions, the review processes, and the published works do not differ at all, from any other ranked academic journals. I have found that the parameters, the array of diversity, and the involvement of the authors is of enormously high standards. Scientific Journals International is a pioneer of open access publishing and it abides to the highest criteria of intellectual research, I have ever been exposed."

Dr. Michael F. Shaughnessy, Eastern New Mexico University, New Mexico, USA, Michael.Shaughnessy@enmu.edu. -- "During the past few years, SJI has provided a peer-reviewed outlet for researchers and scholars to share their scientific research. It is important to have a high quality outlet in which scholars of high academic standards and caliber review papers and provide constructive criticism. I have been fortunate enough to review a good many papers which have provided me with a good deal of insight, and perhaps more importantly to keep up with what is going on in the field and to see the research designs (and yes, sometimes flaws) that other scholars use. Reading research is an important part of professional growth and development. I think Scientific Journals International goes a long way in terms of providing access to new developments and advances in the field. I look forward to reviewing papers and learning from my peers and other leaders in the field. I appreciate the work of Scientific Journals International."
 

Dr. Donna Dea Holland, Department of Sociology, Indiana Purdue University, Indiana, hollandd@ipfw.edu. -- "I strongly support open access peer reviewed journals. I have participated as a reviewer for SJI.  The manuscripts I reviewed were conducted as blind peer reviews. I completed the review of the manuscripts in the same manner as I have for traditional scholarly journals. Open access journals are leading the way to scholarly work being available to all people. As a sociologist I favor open access journals over journals reserved for a select group of people."


Dr. Jianjun Sun, Research Fellow in the Dept. of Microbiology and  Molecular Genetics, Harvard Medical School, jianjun_sun@hms.harvard.edu. -- "I strongly support SJI. Open-access journals are becoming the trend for the future, and they are highly beneficial for scholars all around the world.  As an open-access journal, SJI sets very high standards for peer reviews and for publication."
 

Dr. Jerold H. Theis, Professor, Medical Microbiology, School of Medicine, UC Davis, jhtheis@ucdavis.edu. -- "Online publication of well reviewed scientific studies is exactly what academic researchers need. Under the current system print journals are exacting exorbitant publication fees and editors of these journals are controlling more and more of what is seen by the scientific community through arbitrary decisions even before the articles are sent out to reviewers. The print journals' penchant for what they claim are superstars to be on their editorial boards further constrain the openness of scientific works by placing people with "territory" to protect in a spot where they can "manage" what appears in print. Nothing is more of an anthem to the concept of "Scientific Inquiry" than that type of behavior. The ability to recognize poor experimental design and execution is in the training we all receive as graduate students.  The claim, by the opponents of online publication journals, that such vehicles will result in erroneous information cluttering up the literature conveniently forget all the bogus studies that have been published by print journals following review by the "superstars" of their review boards. If Patriotism is the last refuge of Scoundrels, then self serving editors of print journals are the Judas of free exchange of thought and scientific inquiry. Online publications provide a much needed avenue to thwart censorship."  



Dr. Molly M. Lindner, Assistant Professor of Art, Kent State University--Stark campus, mlindner@kent.edu. --  "SJI is offering an important professional and peer-reviewed publishing venue for faculty in disciplines that have few print journals and long back-logs until publication.  Many universities judge promotion of untenured faculty on articles in print, and SJI makes time to publication a matter of months rather than years.  The manuscripts in anthropology and sociology that I have reviewed for SJI have been of excellent quality.  My interpretation of scientific in the journal's title applies to the arts and humanities, as well as pedagogy in such disciplines.  I encourage art historians to submit their manuscripts that undertake investigations of art works' provenience, including attribution, identification of subject, location, original places of display of works of art for which the original documentation is lost or never existed.  These are scientific inquiries because they delve into material about which little is known or understood and require new methodologies and theoretical frameworks to present them."
 

Dr. James Ruby, Dept. of Human Services, Cal State University, Fullerton, California, drjamesruby@yahoo.com  -- "As one who has both submitted research and served as a reviewer, I find the SJI process to be one that is dedicated to high quality scrutiny of scholarship efforts.  The feedback that is offered to those who make submissions is detailed and seeks to raise the level of research excellence."



Dr. Rob Hull, Professor and Chair of Finance, Washburn University, Kansas, rob.hull@washburn.edu. -- "I understand a few individuals and journals see SJI as a threat and have attacked SJI. If this is true, one underlying reason may reflect their own insecurity as they often give the appearance of being created to serve their own contingency. This would explain why the same schools manage to dominate publications in these journals for long periods of time. The real fear is that this contingency can confine and define the "truth" as they see it and voices from outside this contingency cannot have a fair chance to change it. Then low and behold someone within the contingency makes the same claim voiced earlier by those outside the contingency and this claim now becomes gospel truth."



Dr. Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Emeritus Professor of English, Ball State University, Indiana,  hstahlke@bsu.edu.  -- "As a reviewer, I have reviewed one paper, which I recommended be rejected, and I have read another that was sent to me for review. I chose not to review it because I felt that it was an example of an author understanding formally the nature of empirical research models but not understanding whether a particular study was worth doing. In that case, it was not. If other reviewers are showing similar selectiveness, I don't think SJI needs to be concerned about the quality of its scholarly journals."



Dr. Doris M. Marino, Southern Connecticut State University, USA, marinod1@southernct.edu. "As a peer reviewer for SJI, I have had the opportunity to read several very important research articles that would be leading material for professionals. The blind peer-review process is required of all articles before they are published. I have encouraged colleagues to submit their material to SJI because of the high quality peer-review process. The standards for publication are very high that most research professionals would appreciate."
 

Dr. Kimberly A. Carlson, Associate Professor, Biology Department, University of Nebraska at Kearney, carlsonka1@unk.edu. -- "I was angered to hear about the smear campaign against SJI!  I have published an article in SJI and can vouch that it is peer-reviewed. I myself have reviewed papers for SJI and have accepted and rejected some of them. Keep up the great work SJI."



Dr. Michael G. Lovorn, Assistant Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction The University of Alabama, mlovorn@bamaed.ua.edu. -- "I have performed no less than six blind reviews for SJI (The Journal of Education and Human Development) in recent months, and have found their submission processes, review standards, and publication expectations to be as rigorous and demanding as any other with which I have been involved."
 

Dr. Sunil Kumar Joshi, Asst. Professor of Community Medicine, Kathmandu Medical College, Nepal, drsunil@drsunil.com.np.-- "Recently, I came to know about the lies and smear campaigns against various open access journals like SJI.  Such misinformation campaigns are  baseless, unethical and disgraceful. I have been sent numerous articles by SJI for peer review. And I do so as per the field of my expertise. SJI is doing a good job by publishing so many good articles online, that are accessible to all readers free of cost. I wish SJI all the best and encourage all open access journals to fight hard against such baseless smear campaigns."